Tang Kwok Pang v. Kot See for

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 255/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 August 2021 before Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Stock NPJ.

Civil procedure – privilege against self-incrimination – Theft Ordinance s.33 – leave to appeal – Court of Final Appeal – requisite importance – applicant Tang Kwok Pang – plaintiff Kot See For – Question 1: proper approach to claim for privilege against disclosure where potential exposure includes conspiracy to commit a Theft Ordinance offence and any other offence – Question 2(a): basis for precluding privilege in absence of statutory abrogation – Question 2(b): protective measures for disclosure made despite privilege – leave granted on three questions – leave refused on 'or otherwise' basis – appeal listed for 30 November 2021 – stay of execution of injunction order pending appeal, subject to condition that affirmation remain with Registry

Legal issues: Privilege against self-incrimination under Theft Ordinance s.33 · Basis for precluding privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings · Measures of protection for disclosure made despite privilege

Outcome: Leave to appeal granted on Questions 1, 2(a) and 2(b); leave refused on the 'or otherwise' basis. Appeal to be heard on 30 November 2021.

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.FAMV 255/2021[2021] HKCFA 31
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Date17 Aug 2021
JudgeMr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Stock NPJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMV No. 255 of 2021

[2021] HKCFA 31

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 255 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV NO. 536 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN    
KOT SEE FOR (葛師科) Plaintiff
(Respondent)
and
LAM MAN CHEUNG (林萬璋) 1st Defendant
TANG KWOK PANG (鄧國鵬) 2nd Defendant
(Applicant)
AU YEUNG HO SUM (歐陽可森) 3rd Defendant

____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Mr Justice Stock NPJ

Date of Hearing and Determination: 17 August 2021

____________________

DETERMINATION

____________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.We are satisfied that the questions involved in the appeal are of the requisite importance and ought to be submitted to the Court for decision, namely:

Question 1:

In the light of section 33 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, what is the proper approach to a claim in civil proceedings for privilege against disclosure on the ground of self-incrimination where the potential exposure is not only to a charge for a substantive offence under the Theft Ordinance but also for:

(i)    a conspiracy to commit a Theft Ordinance offence, and

(ii)   any other offence?

Question 2(a):

In the absence of statutory abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination in any particular case, on what basis may a person be precluded from refusing disclosure ordered in civil proceedings notwithstanding such person invoking the aforesaid privilege?

Question 2(b):

If there be such a basis, subject to what measures, if any, by way of protection against the risk of exposure to criminal proceedings as a result of such disclosure might such preclusion be directed?

2.We refuse leave on the “or otherwise” basis.

3.The appeal will be listed for hearing on 30 November 2021.

4.We also direct that there be a stay of execution of paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Injunction Order made by DHCJ M K Liu dated 3 May 2019 pending the Court’s determination of the Applicant’s appeal on the condition that the Affirmation filed by the Applicant on 23 July 2021 pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ made on 16 July 2021 do remain with the Registry of this Court pending the determination of the Applicant’s appeal.

(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge
(Joseph Fok)
Permanent Judge
(Frank Stock)>
Non-Permanent Judge

Mr Ambrose Ho SC and Mr Jeff Chan, instructed by Li & Lai, for the 2nd Defendant (Applicant)

Mr Rimsky Yuen SC and Ms Esther Mak, instructed by Mayer Brown, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 255/2021