fat: summary by soonet4.5

en_cases_hkca/2000_HKCA_341/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Dr Paul KI Ping-ki
+- Hong Kong Washington Company
+
+defendant:
+- Next Magazine Publishing Ltd
+- CHEUNG Kim-hung
+- Toppan Printing Co (HK) Ltd
+- YEUNG Wai-hong
+- LEE Kwong-fung
+
+case_reason: >
+  Appeal against the decision refusing leave to appeal out of time from a Registrar's order 
+  that allowed the 1st defendant to set off debt owed by Dr Ki against a judgment sum of 
+  $200,100 awarded to the plaintiffs in a defamation action.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr Ki's appeal. The court held that Dr Ki had an inordinate 
+  delay of over 7 months without reasonable excuse in seeking leave to appeal the Registrar's 
+  order. The Registrar had correctly determined that Next Magazine Publishing Ltd was entitled 
+  to set off taxed costs from a previous defamation action against damages awarded to Dr Ki 
+  in the current defamation action, pursuant to Section 35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. The 
+  court found no merit in Dr Ki's proposed appeal and upheld the judge's refusal to grant 
+  extension of time. Appeal dismissed with costs.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- High Court
+- Court of Appeal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Judgment sum of $200,100
+- Taxed costs of $906,185.40
+- Proof of debt
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Appeal against refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time from Registrar's order allowing set-off
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Defendants committed contempt of court by disobeying Official Receiver's order
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Registrar did not have jurisdiction to overturn Official Receiver's order
+  established: N
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Official Receiver
+  state_reasons: Acted as trustee in bankruptcy of Dr Ki and issued opinion that damages did not form part of bankruptcy estate
+- name: Registrar Chu
+  state_reasons: Made the original order on 30 May 1999 allowing set-off of debt against judgment sum
+- name: Yuen J
+  state_reasons: Judge who refused Dr Ki's application for leave to appeal out of time on 2 May 2000
+- name: Hon Leong JA
+  state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who heard the appeal
+- name: Woo JA
+  state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who delivered the judgment of the Court

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_16/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+defendant:
+  - POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
+case_reason: >
+  Three charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to sections 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. The appellant allowed his bank accounts to be used to receive funds totaling HK$2,042,120.47 from victims of investment and lottery fraud in America and Taiwan between 20-23 October 2009, then withdrew and passed the money to a person named 'Ah Yung'.
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Court of Appeal reduced the appellant's sentence from 2 years and 8 months to 2 years' imprisonment. The court found the original sentence excessive, noting that the appellant's role was less culpable as he merely allowed his accounts to be used with limited knowledge of the underlying crime. While the case involved over HK$2 million and an international element, the appellant was not the mastermind and received no direct payment, only debt forgiveness of HK$50,000-60,000. The court applied principles from HKSAR v Boma Amaso regarding sentencing factors in money laundering cases and ordered the three concurrent sentences of 2 years each.
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCA
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+  - Hong Kong
+  - Macau
+  - America
+  - Taiwan
+case_object:
+  - Bank accounts
+  - HK$2,042,120.47 (fraudulent proceeds)
+judgment_result:
+  - allegation_content: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 1 - HK$520,064.26)
+    established: Y
+  - allegation_content: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 2 - HK$355,251.90)
+    established: Y
+  - allegation_content: Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 3 - HK$1,166,804.31)
+    established: Y
+involved_entities:
+  - name: POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
+    state_reasons: Appellant/Defendant who pleaded guilty to three charges of money laundering by allowing his bank accounts to be used for receiving fraudulent proceeds
+  - name: Ah Yung
+    state_reasons: Person who requested the appellant to use his bank accounts for dealing with remittances; appellant owed him gambling debts of HK$50,000-60,000
+  - name: PW1
+    state_reasons: Victim residing in America who was deceived by investment fraud and remitted HK$875,316.16 into appellant's bank accounts on 23 October 2009
+  - name: PW2
+    state_reasons: Victim residing in Taiwan who was deceived by lottery fraud and remitted HK$1,166,804.31 into appellant's bank account on 20 and 23 October 2009
+  - name: Hon Cheung JA
+    state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who delivered the reasons for judgment
+  - name: Aarif Barma JA
+    state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who concurred with the judgment
+  - name: H H Judge Douglas Yau
+    state_reasons: District Court Judge who imposed the original sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment
+  - name: Ms Flora Cheng
+    state_reasons: Defense counsel instructed by Director of Legal Aid who appeared for the appellant in the appeal
+  - name: Ms Peggy Lo
+    state_reasons: Senior Public Prosecutor of Department of Justice who appeared for the respondent

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_328/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
+
+case_reason: >
+  The defendant was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs after arriving at Hong Kong International Airport from Kuala Lumpur on 6 July 2008. Customs officials observed abnormal abdominal bulging, and medical examination confirmed foreign objects in his body. Over 9 days, he excreted 75 pellets containing 610.67g of heroin hydrochloride with a street value exceeding $500,000.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time against conviction. The applicant was convicted on 21 May 2009 of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment. The appeal was substantially out of time (over 1.5 years delay) and the ground of appeal concerning the judge's direction on duress defense was not substantial or plainly arguable. The court found no merit in the argument that the judge's use of "immediate or almost immediate" harm excluded threats to the applicant's father, and confirmed that the judge properly directed the jury on the defense of duress and evasive action available to the defendant.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Hong Kong Court of Appeal
+
+case_location:
+  - Hong Kong International Airport
+  - High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+  - Court of Appeal
+
+case_object:
+  - 75 pellets containing 610.67g of heroin hydrochloride
+
+judgment_result:
+  - allegation_content: Trafficking in dangerous drugs
+    established: Y
+  - allegation_content: Application for leave to appeal out of time against conviction
+    established: N
+
+involved_entities:
+  - name: Deputy High Court Judge Mackintosh
+    state_reasons: Presided over the original trial and convicted the applicant on 21 May 2009
+  - name: Hon Yuen JA
+    state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who delivered the judgment of the Court dismissing the application
+  - name: Barnes J
+    state_reasons: Judge of the Court of First Instance hearing the appeal
+  - name: McWalters J
+    state_reasons: Judge of the Court of First Instance hearing the appeal
+  - name: Mr Phillip Ross
+    state_reasons: Counsel representing the applicant in the appeal, instructed by Christine M. Koo & Ip, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid
+  - name: Ms Catherine Ko
+    state_reasons: Acting Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions representing the respondent
+  - name: Hartmann JA
+    state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who dismissed the earlier application for leave to appeal against sentence on 14 May 2010
+  - name: Lunn J
+    state_reasons: Judge who dismissed the earlier application for leave to appeal against sentence on 14 May 2010
+  - name: West Africans
+    state_reasons: Alleged perpetrators who the defendant claimed forced him to swallow the drug pellets under duress and threats to his family
+  - name: Customs officials
+    state_reasons: Officers at Hong Kong International Airport who observed the defendant's abnormal abdominal bulging and arrested him
+  - name: Swahili interpreter
+    state_reasons: Provided interpretation services during the defendant's interview with Customs officers

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_567/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+- HO WAI CHING (何惠貞)
+
+case_reason: >
+  Fraud involving invoice financing. The defendant, together with Hui Po Keung and Leung Chi Keung (Kenny), 
+  committed fraud on 14 banks by falsely representing that sales and purchases of goods mentioned in Ming Fai 
+  Production Company Limited invoices were genuine, inducing banks to make payments totaling over $153 million 
+  during January to July 2007.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal. The applicant was 
+  convicted of 14 counts of fraud contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The court found 
+  that despite some inappropriate judicial interventions and prosecutorial conduct, these did not constitute 
+  material irregularities. The applicant's role as Financial Controller involved applying for banking facilities, 
+  signing facility letters and guarantees, knowing Ming Fai was not a genuine computer supplier. The appeal 
+  against sentence was partially allowed only for Count 4, reducing it from 3 years to 2 years imprisonment. 
+  Total sentence remained 7 years and 3 months imprisonment, with outstanding bank losses of $21.47 million.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- High Court
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Invoice financing applications
+- Banking facility letters
+- False invoices from Ming Fai Production Company Limited
+- Corporate resolutions
+- Personal guarantees
+- Bank accounts
+- Computer purchase documentation
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: 14 counts of fraud by falsely representing genuine sales and purchases to obtain invoice financing from banks
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: Appeal against conviction on grounds of unfair trial due to improper prosecution conduct and judicial intervention
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Appeal against sentence on grounds of manifest excessiveness
+  established: Partial (Count 4 sentence reduced from 3 years to 2 years)
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: HO WAI CHING (何惠貞)
+  state_reasons: Defendant/Applicant, convicted as Financial Controller of Cyberspeed Technology Company Limited, participated in fraudulent scheme by applying for banking facilities and signing documents
+- name: Leung Chi Keung, Kenny
+  state_reasons: Co-accused, husband of applicant, mastermind of fraudulent scheme, signed all 301 invoice financing applications
+- name: Hui Po Keung
+  state_reasons: Co-accused, brother-in-law of applicant, shareholder and director of Ming Fai Production Company Limited, received 0.2% commission
+- name: Cyberspeed Technology Company Limited
+  state_reasons: Company controlled by applicant and Kenny Leung, purported purchaser of computers, applied for invoice financing
+- name: Ming Fai Production Company Limited
+  state_reasons: Decoration company controlled by Hui Po Keung, falsely represented as computer supplier, received bank payments
+- name: Sofmap Company Limited
+  state_reasons: One of three companies controlled by applicant and Kenny Leung used to transfer funds from Ming Fai to Cyberspeed
+- name: Global Gain Properties Limited
+  state_reasons: One of three companies controlled by applicant and Kenny Leung used to transfer funds from Ming Fai to Cyberspeed
+- name: Cyberspeed Services Limited
+  state_reasons: One of three companies controlled by applicant and Kenny Leung used to transfer funds from Ming Fai to Cyberspeed
+- name: Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited
+  state_reasons: One of 14 victim banks defrauded through false invoice financing applications (Count 1)
+- name: Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
+  state_reasons: Victim bank in Count 9, advanced $25.7 million with loss of $6.4 million through 46 false applications
+- name: Citic Ka Wah Bank
+  state_reasons: Victim bank in Count 3, advanced $17.5 million with loss of $6.8 million through 33 false applications, facility renewed by applicant in April 2007
+- name: DBS Bank
+  state_reasons: One of victim banks, applicant had internet access to view invoice finance transactions since 2004
+- name: Bank of East Asia (BEA)
+  state_reasons: One of victim banks, applicant had internet access to account since 2004
+- name: Bank of Communication
+  state_reasons: One of victim banks defrauded through invoice financing scheme
+- name: Fubon Bank
+  state_reasons: One of victim banks defrauded through invoice financing scheme
+- name: PT Bank
+  state_reasons: One of victim banks defrauded through invoice financing scheme
+- name: Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan
+  state_reasons: Trial judge in both trials, imposed sentences totaling 7 years and 3 months imprisonment
+- name: Hon Stock VP
+  state_reasons: Vice President presiding over Court of Appeal
+- name: Hon Lunn JA
+  state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who delivered the judgment of the Court
+- name: Barnes J
+  state_reasons: Judge sitting in Court of Appeal
+- name: Mr Eric Kwok SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel representing the applicant in appeal
+- name: Mr David Leung, DDPP(Ag)
+  state_reasons: Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) representing the respondent
+- name: Mr Felix Tam, PP
+  state_reasons: Public Prosecutor representing the respondent
+- name: Mr Joe Lai Yiu Cho
+  state_reasons: Former employee of Cyberspeed, prosecution witness, sole proprietor of Super Dragon Technology
+- name: Mr Danny Ho Kwai Yuen
+  state_reasons: Brother of applicant, warehouse supervisor of Cyberspeed, prosecution witness
+- name: Ms Ann Ng Mee Lin
+  state_reasons: Former employee of Cyberspeed, prosecution witness
+- name: Mr Marco Chan Yik Lung
+  state_reasons: Former employee of Cyberspeed, prosecution witness

en_cases_hkca/2020_HKCA_649/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+plaintiff:
+- AKTHER MOSAMMAT FATEMA
+defendant:
+- TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
+- THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
+case_reason: >
+  Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal concerning a non-refoulement claim. 
+  The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 May 2020, and she subsequently 
+  sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, arguing that the assessor did not properly 
+  consider her fear of returning to her country of origin due to political disputes and that the 
+  assessment lacked proper inquiry about country conditions under BOR 3 risk.
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court 
+  of Final Appeal. The applicant had previously appealed from DHCJ K.W. Lung's order refusing her 
+  application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim, which 
+  was dismissed on 28 May 2020. In her motion, the applicant repeated arguments already assessed 
+  by the lower court and the Court of Appeal without addressing the court's reasoning. The court 
+  found no question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong 
+  Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), nor any basis for granting leave under the "or 
+  otherwise" limb. The motion dated 9 June 2020 was dismissed.
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCA
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_object:
+- Non-refoulement claim
+- Application for leave to appeal
+- Judicial review application
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal concerning non-refoulement claim
+  established: N
+involved_entities:
+- name: DHCJ K.W. Lung
+  state_reasons: Judge who gave the order on 16 September 2019 refusing the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review
+- name: Hon Yuen JA
+  state_reasons: Justice of Appeal who gave the judgment of the Court
+- name: Thomas Au JA
+  state_reasons: Justice of Appeal hearing the case
+- name: Lisa Wong J
+  state_reasons: Judge of the Court of First Instance hearing the case
+- name: Registrar of Civil Appeals
+  state_reasons: Directed the applicant to lodge written submissions and determined the motion should be decided on paper
+- name: Court of Final Appeal
+  state_reasons: The court to which the applicant sought leave to appeal
+- name: Torture Claims Appeal Board
+  state_reasons: First putative respondent in the original judicial review application
+- name: Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
+  state_reasons: First putative respondent in the original judicial review application

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - MO YUK PING
+
+defendant:
+  - HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (HKSAR)
+
+case_reason: Application for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal regarding convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, with particular focus on whether the elements of conspiracy to defraud satisfy constitutional requirements of legal certainty.
+
+judgment_summary: The Court of Final Appeal's Appeal Committee heard an application for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's judgment. The applicant had two convictions - conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice (Charge 3). The Court of Appeal had certified one point regarding legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud elements but refused to certify four other points. The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal only for the certified point concerning whether conspiracy to defraud elements are sufficiently precise to satisfy constitutional requirements of legal certainty. Leave was refused for the conviction of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice and for all other grounds including the "substantial and grave injustice" ground.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object: 
+  - Criminal convictions for conspiracy to defraud
+  - Criminal convictions for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application for leave to appeal on certified point regarding legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud
+    result: Granted
+  - charge: Application for leave to appeal against conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice conviction
+    result: Refused
+  - charge: Application to certify points 2 to 4
+    result: Refused
+  - charge: Application for leave on "substantial and grave injustice" ground
+    result: Refused
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Court of Appeal
+    reason: Lower court that issued the judgment being appealed, certified one point but refused to certify four other points
+  - entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+    reason: Member of the Appeal Committee hearing the application
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge who delivered the determination for the Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+    reason: Member of the Appeal Committee hearing the application
+  - entity_name: Ms Clare Montgomery QC
+    reason: Queen's Counsel representing the applicant
+  - entity_name: Ms Po Wing Kay
+    reason: Counsel representing the applicant, instructed by W M Lo & Co.
+  - entity_name: W M Lo & Co.
+    reason: Law firm instructing counsel for the applicant
+  - entity_name: Mr Kevin P Zervos SC
+    reason: Senior Counsel representing the respondent from Department of Justice
+  - entity_name: Ms Winnie Ho
+    reason: Counsel representing the respondent from Department of Justice
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Government department representing the respondent (HKSAR)

en_cases_hkcfa/2008_HKCFA_13/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - KENSLAND REALTY LIMITED (in compulsory liquidation)
+
+defendant:
+  - TAI, TANG CHONG
+
+case_reason: Professional negligence claim against solicitors for allegedly negligent legal advice regarding a property sale transaction that resulted in breach of contract and subsequent damages.
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  The Court of Final Appeal dismissed Kensland's appeal against its former solicitors TTC. Kensland had sued TTC for negligent advice regarding termination of a property sale contract with Whale View Investment Ltd. The court held that Kensland's action was time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance. By November 1997, Kensland had sufficient knowledge of the damage and its attribution to TTC's advice to commence proceedings. The court applied section 31 of the Limitation Ordinance, finding that Kensland knew the facts about the damage (liability to Whale View, legal costs, and property value diminution) and that this damage was attributable to TTC's acts or omissions. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong
+
+case_object: Shop premises subject to sale and purchase agreement
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Professional negligence claim for damages arising from allegedly negligent legal advice
+    result: Appeal dismissed; action struck out as time-barred
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Whale View Investment Ltd
+    reason: Original purchaser of the shop premises who successfully sued Kensland for breach of contract
+  - entity_name: Messrs Tam, Pun and Yipp (TPY)
+    reason: Solicitors acting for Whale View Investment Ltd in the property transaction
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge presiding over the appeal
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge presiding over the appeal
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge presiding over the appeal
+  - entity_name: Sir Noel Power NPJ
+    reason: Non-Permanent Judge presiding over the appeal
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice McHugh NPJ
+    reason: Non-Permanent Judge presiding over the appeal
+  - entity_name: Deputy Judge Gill
+    reason: High Court judge who initially ruled in favor of Kensland
+  - entity_name: Rogers VP
+    reason: Court of Appeal Vice President who reversed the High Court decision
+  - entity_name: Le Pichon JA
+    reason: Court of Appeal Justice of Appeal who reversed the High Court decision
+  - entity_name: Mr John Scott SC
+    reason: Senior Counsel representing the appellant Kensland
+  - entity_name: Mr Charles Manzoni
+    reason: Counsel representing the appellant Kensland
+  - entity_name: Mr Michael Thomas SC
+    reason: Senior Counsel representing the respondent TTC
+  - entity_name: Mr Andrew Bullett
+    reason: Counsel representing the respondent TTC
+  - entity_name: Yvonne Yeung Han Yi (Ms Yeung)
+    reason: Director of Kensland who received advice from TTC and made key decisions

en_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_22/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly known as Moulin Optical Manufactory Ltd)
+
+defendant:
+- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
+
+case_reason: >
+  Information not available - case content field is empty in source data.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  Information not available - case content field is empty in source data. 
+  Unable to extract judgment details from the provided case.json file.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Court of Final Appeal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Information not available
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Information not available - case content is empty
+  established: Unknown
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Ltd (in liquidation)
+  state_reasons: Plaintiff/Appellant in the case
+- name: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
+  state_reasons: Defendant/Respondent in the case

en_cases_hkcfa/2016_HKCFA_41/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)
+  - YU OI KEE (余藹琪)
+
+case_reason: |
+  Applications for leave to appeal concerning interpretation of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, specifically regarding the definition of "agent" under s.9, the scope of "or other document" in s.9(3), and whether the common law principle treating sole director's mind as company's mind applies to statutory anti-corruption offences.
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  The Court of Final Appeal granted leave to appeal on three questions of law concerning the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201). The questions address: (1) the meaning of "agent" under s.9 and whether it requires legal, contractual or fiduciary obligations; (2) whether "or other document" in s.9(3) should be construed ejusdem generis and whether board minutes qualify; (3) whether the common law principle from R v McDonnell that treats sole director's mind as the company's mind applies to conspiracy offences under the POBO. The appeals were scheduled for hearing on 23 November 2016.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201)
+  - Board minutes
+  - Documents under s.9(3) POBO
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application for leave to appeal from CACC No 283 of 2014
+    result: Leave granted on three questions of law
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: HKSAR
+    reason: Respondent in FAMC 68/2015 and 69/2015; Applicant in FAMC 15/2016
+  - entity_name: LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)
+    reason: 1st Defendant, Applicant in FAMC 68/2015, Respondent in FAMC 15/2016
+  - entity_name: YU OI KEE (余藹琪)
+    reason: 2nd Defendant, Applicant in FAMC 69/2015, Respondent in FAMC 15/2016
+  - entity_name: Chief Justice Ma
+    reason: Member of Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+    reason: Member of Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Tang PJ
+    reason: Member of Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: V. Hau & Chow
+    reason: Legal representatives for 1st Defendant
+  - entity_name: Leung & Lau
+    reason: Legal representatives for 2nd Defendant
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Legal representatives for HKSAR

en_cases_hkcfa/2023_HKCFA_30/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - KWOK WING KIN (郭永健)
+  - HO STANLEY WAI HONG (何偉航)
+  - WONG HO MING RAPHAEL (黃浩銘)
+  - TSANG KIN SHING (曾健成)
+  - MAK TAK CHING (麥德正)
+  - NG MAN YUEN AVERY (吳文遠)
+  - LEE CHEUK YAN (李卓人)
+  - LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄)
+
+case_reason: Participation in a prohibited group gathering contrary to section 6 of the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Gathering) Regulation during COVID-19 pandemic. Eight defendants staged a May Day procession on 1 May 2020 from Admiralty Centre to Central Government Offices to demand unemployment benefits and protest against COVID restrictions, violating the regulation prohibiting gatherings of more than four persons.
+
+judgment_summary: The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the leave application. The applicants sought to challenge their convictions for participating in a prohibited group gathering during COVID-19, raising questions about the construction of the Regulation and constitutional issues regarding freedom of demonstration. The Court held that no point of law of great and general importance was involved since the Regulation expired on 31 March 2023 and is now a dead letter. The proper construction of its provisions is no longer of general importance, and questions of constitutionality and proportionality are entirely moot. The Court rejected arguments that similar regulations might be enacted in future pandemics, noting that any future measures would depend on the specific nature of the pandemic and cannot be assumed to have similar wording.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object: Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Gathering) Regulation (Cap 599G); Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484); Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Cap 599)
+
+judgment_result:
+  charges:
+    - charge: Participation in a prohibited group gathering contrary to section 6 of the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Gathering) Regulation
+      established: true
+      outcome: Leave to appeal refused. Original convictions upheld (14 days' imprisonment suspended for 18 months)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Chief Executive in Council
+    reason: Issued the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Gathering) Regulation pursuant to section 8 of the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge who delivered the reasons for determination
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+    reason: Permanent Judge on the Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: Mr Justice Tang NPJ
+    reason: Non-Permanent Judge on the Appeal Committee
+  - entity_name: Magistrate Mr Cheang Kei-hong
+    reason: Trial magistrate who convicted the defendants
+  - entity_name: Wong J
+    reason: Judge who dismissed the defendants' appeal at HKCFI
+  - entity_name: Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat
+    reason: Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th Appellants
+  - entity_name: Mr Jason Kung
+    reason: Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th Appellants
+  - entity_name: JCC Cheung & Co. Solicitors
+    reason: Solicitors for the Appellants
+  - entity_name: Mr Andrew Li, SPP
+    reason: Senior Public Prosecutor for the Respondent
+  - entity_name: Mr Christopher Fung, SPP (Ag)
+    reason: Acting Senior Public Prosecutor for the Respondent
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Representing the Respondent (HKSAR)
+  - entity_name: Admiralty Centre
+    reason: Starting location of the May Day procession
+  - entity_name: Central Government Offices
+    reason: Destination of the May Day procession

en_cases_hkcfi/1995_HKCFI_34/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - LAI SAU KING
+
+defendant:
+  - LAM CHARP FAT
+
+case_reason: Property dispute arising from former cohabitation involving claims for resulting trust over shop and flat, money lent, and damages for breach of loan agreement
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  This action arose from the former cohabitation between the parties. The plaintiff claimed: (1) 50% beneficial interest in Shop 6, Ground Floor, Jing Ying Building, Yuen Long based on contribution; (2) sole beneficial ownership of Flat A, 1st Floor, Shiu Yat House, On Lok Road, Yuen Long; (3) $50,000 as money lent; and (4) $75,262.07 damages for breach of loan agreement. The court found the defendant's credibility destroyed by photographic evidence proving earlier cohabitation than claimed. Despite concerns about the plaintiff's bankruptcy history and lack of documentation, the court accepted her account. Judgment granted the plaintiff sole beneficial ownership of the flat, proportionate beneficial interest in the shop based on her financial contribution, repayment of $50,000 loan, and $75,262.07 damages. The court also ordered payment of the plaintiff's share of rental income from the shop from September 1987 onwards.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: High Court of the First Instance
+
+case_location: Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+  - Shop 6, Ground Floor, Jing Ying Building, Yuen Long
+  - Flat A, 1st Floor, Shiu Yat House, On Lok Road, Yuen Long
+
+judgment_result:
+  - claim: Declaration that shop held on resulting trust for plaintiff to extent of 50%
+    established: Partially - beneficial interest limited to financial contribution percentage to be ascertained
+  - claim: Declaration that plaintiff is sole beneficial owner of flat
+    established: Yes
+  - claim: $50,000 as money lent
+    established: Yes
+  - claim: $75,262.07 damages for breach of loan agreement
+    established: Yes
+  - claim: Share of rental income from shop from August 1987
+    established: Yes - from September 1987 onwards
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: LAI SAU KING
+    reason: Plaintiff claiming beneficial interests in properties and money owed
+  - entity_name: LAM CHARP FAT
+    reason: Defendant holding legal title to disputed properties
+  - entity_name: Kwang Tung Provincial Bank
+    reason: Bank that provided $200,000 loan secured by mortgage on the flat
+  - entity_name: Yeung Kam Sing
+    reason: First tenant of the shop, witness for plaintiff
+  - entity_name: Madam Yeung Wan Hen (PW2)
+    reason: Witness who testified about plaintiff and defendant's relationship in 1978
+  - entity_name: Wong Kwai Hing
+    reason: Witness regarding passbook incident in December 1989
+  - entity_name: Lam Bo
+    reason: Defendant's younger brother, witness for defendant
+  - entity_name: Leung Kwok Choi
+    reason: Former chef at Sam Sing Restaurant, witness for defendant
+  - entity_name: Defendant's mother
+    reason: Witness for defendant, claimed to have funded property purchases
+  - entity_name: Lam Yuk Wah
+    reason: Defendant's sister, witness for defendant
+  - entity_name: Lam Chak Tai
+    reason: Defendant's elder brother, did not testify despite being in Hong Kong
+  - entity_name: Mr. Ottens
+    reason: Plaintiff's former husband
+  - entity_name: Wai Chi
+    reason: Plaintiff's son from previous marriage
+  - entity_name: Sam Sing Restaurant
+    reason: Defendant's restaurant in Amsterdam where parties met and cohabited
+  - entity_name: Hong Kong Restaurant
+    reason: Plaintiff's restaurant in Holland
+  - entity_name: Mr. Justice Barnett
+    reason: Judge presiding over the case
+  - entity_name: Mr. J. Poon
+    reason: Counsel for plaintiff
+  - entity_name: Mr. C.Y. Li
+    reason: Counsel for defendant

en_cases_hkcfi/2016_HKCFI_33/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - BIRKENHEAD PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - LAM KAI-MAN (林啟文)
+  - PERSON(S) IN OCCUPATION OF THE LAND
+
+case_reason: Land recovery action - adverse possession claim. The plaintiff, as registered owner of Lot No 769 (part) in Demarcation District No 99, Yuen Long, New Territories, sought to recover possession of land from a squatter. The defendant counterclaimed adverse possession of the disputed area.
+
+judgment_summary: This is an action for recovery of land by the registered owner against a squatter. The plaintiff became the registered owner of Lot No 769 (part) in Yuen Long, New Territories on 25 May 1978 and sought to recover a rectangular plot of land. The 1st defendant claimed continuous exclusive possession since before March 1999 and counterclaimed adverse possession. The court found that although the defendant had exclusive possession of the disputed area (except the Marshy Area), he failed to demonstrate the necessary animus possidendi (intention to possess) and that his possession was adverse to the plaintiff. Critically, his possession fell short of the 12-year period required under the Limitation Ordinance to extinguish the plaintiff's title. The court dismissed the defendant's defence and counterclaim, entering judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the disputed land.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Lot No 769 (part) in Demarcation District No 99, Yuen Long, New Territories
+  - Area Shaded White (including the disputed Area and Marshy Area)
+  - Left Government Land
+  - Right Government Land
+  - Temporary structures (TS-1, TS-2, TS-3)
+
+judgment_result:
+  plaintiff_claims:
+    - claim: Recovery of possession of land (the Area within Lot No 769)
+      established: true
+  defendant_counterclaims:
+    - claim: Adverse possession of the entire Area Shaded White
+      established: false
+  orders:
+    - Judgment for possession of the Area Shaded White entered against the 1st and 2nd defendants
+    - The 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed
+    - The 1st defendant to pay costs to the plaintiff
+
+involved_entities:
+  - name: BIRKENHEAD PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
+    role: Plaintiff - registered owner of Lot No 769 (part) since 25 May 1978, seeking to recover possession of land from squatter
+  - name: LAM KAI-MAN (林啟文)
+    role: 1st Defendant - motor mechanic operating "Chi Shing" motor service company, claimed adverse possession of disputed land since 1988-1989
+  - name: PERSON(S) IN OCCUPATION OF THE LAND
+    role: 2nd Defendant - no appearance entered
+  - name: Mr Shea (佘常光 - Shea Sheung Kwong)
+    role: Former occupier of the land who raised poultry and pigs, allegedly sold rights to defendant and Mr Siu in 1999
+  - name: Mr Siu (蕭樹棠 - Siu Shu Tong)
+    role: Co-purchaser with defendant in 1999 Agreement, occupied Right Government Land and parts of disputed area until around 2005
+  - name: Mr Yip
+    role: Third party who made Town Planning Application relating to Left Government Land and part of the Area
+  - name: China Light and Power Limited
+    role: Electricity supplier - defendant applied for electricity supply in March 1999, meter installed on Left Government Land
+  - name: Hon To J
+    role: Judge presiding over the case
+  - name: Mr Chan (Ted Chan & Associates Limited)
+    role: Plaintiff's expert witness on survey sheets and aerial photographs interpretation; also counsel for the Plaintiff
+  - name: Mr Joseph Wong (Land Marker (1980) HK Co Ltd)
+    role: Defendant's expert witness on interpretation of survey sheets and aerial photographs
+  - name: Mr Cheung
+    role: Counsel for the 1st Defendant
+  - name: Lau Sau Fung (劉秀鳳)
+    role: Witness to the 1999 Agreement between defendant, Mr Siu and Mr Shea

en_cases_hkcfi/2019_HKCFI_2252/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 郭卓堅 (Kwok Cheuk Kin)
+  - 葉慶祥 (Yip Hing Cheung)
+
+defendant:
+  - 香港行政長官林鄭月娥女士 (The Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Mrs. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor)
+
+case_reason: |
+  The Applicants sought judicial review challenging the Chief Executive's decision not to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether the Police had abused their powers and the reasons for the continuous protests in Hong Kong arising from the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  The Court dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Court held that: (1) under Section 2(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance, Cap 86, the power to appoint a Commission is vested in the Chief Executive in Council, and the court has no power to compel such appointment; (2) the Chief Executive in Council is not under a legal duty to appoint a Commission, and no legitimate expectation arose as there was no relevant representation by the decision-maker; (3) the relief sought was plainly inappropriate as the Applicants failed to identify the precise incidents or scope of inquiry; (4) whether to establish a Commission is a political decision, not a legal issue for the court to resolve. The application was deemed an abuse of the court's process.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
+
+case_location: High Court, Hong Kong
+
+case_object: |
+  Application for leave to apply for judicial review; Commission of Inquiry under Cap 86
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Failure to establish a Commission of Inquiry amounts to improper conduct and is contrary to legitimate expectation
+    result: Not established - Application dismissed
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 郭卓堅 (Kwok Cheuk Kin)
+    reason: 1st Applicant seeking judicial review
+  - entity_name: 葉慶祥 (Yip Hing Cheung)
+    reason: 2nd Applicant seeking judicial review
+  - entity_name: 香港行政長官林鄭月娥女士 (Chief Executive Mrs. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor)
+    reason: Putative Respondent whose decision not to establish a Commission was challenged
+  - entity_name: Hong Kong Police
+    reason: Subject of the proposed inquiry regarding alleged abuse of powers
+  - entity_name: Chief Executive in Council
+    reason: The body with statutory power to appoint a Commission under Cap 86
+  - entity_name: Hon Chow J (Judge Anderson Chow)
+    reason: Judge of the Court of First Instance who decided the case

en_cases_hkcfi/2019_HKCFI_918/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
+
+defendant:
+  - ABDULLAH, MOHAMMAD
+
+case_reason: Taking employment while being a person who remains in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully, contrary to sections 38AA(1)(a) and 38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  The Appellant was convicted of taking employment while remaining in Hong Kong unlawfully. The case involved a covert Immigration Department operation where decoy officers observed the Appellant working as a waiter in a restaurant. The main issue at trial was the identity of the Appellant. The prosecution witnesses testified that they observed a male in a blue polo top serving customers, and this person was subsequently identified as the Appellant when officers revealed themselves. The Magistrate found the prosecution witnesses credible and reliable, applying Turnbull guidelines for identification evidence. The Appellant appealed his conviction, claiming he was not the person who served the officers and was only in the restaurant to pray. The Deputy High Court Judge reviewed the evidence and found no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's findings. The conviction was upheld as the evidence proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance
+
+case_location: High Court, Hong Kong
+
+case_object: Employment taken unlawfully by illegal immigrant in a restaurant
+
+judgment_result:
+  charge: Taking employment while being a person who remains in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully
+  conviction_status: Upheld
+  original_sentence: 21 months imprisonment
+  appeal_outcome: Appeal against conviction dismissed
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Immigration Department
+    reason: Conducted covert operation to detect illegal employment
+  - entity_name: Restaurant at G/F, 60 Po Tung Road, Sai Kung
+    reason: Location where the illegal employment took place
+  - entity_name: Duty Lawyer Service Scheme
+    reason: Provided legal representation for the Appellant at trial
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Represented the respondent (HKSAR) in the appeal

en_cases_hkcfi/2023_HKCFI_1165/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - Valles Julie Ann Caranto
+
+defendant:
+  - Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
+
+case_reason: |
+  Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 March 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board refusing to allow the applicant's late filing of notice of appeal/petition against the Director's Second Decision regarding non-refoulement claim based on alleged risks of harm from husband and loan sharks if returned to the Philippines.
+
+judgment_summary: |
+  The Court refused to grant leave for judicial review. The applicant, a Filipino national who overstayed in Hong Kong, claimed non-refoulement protection based on alleged risks from her abusive husband and loan sharks. The Board rejected her late appeal filing, finding she failed to notify address changes and her grounds lacked merit. The Court held the Board correctly refused time extension, noting the applicant's obligation to maintain updated contact information. The Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and the applicant failed to demonstrate realistic prospects of success. Application dismissed.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance
+
+case_location: Hong Kong
+
+case_object: |
+  Decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 7 March 2019 refusing late filing of notice of appeal/petition
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application for leave to apply for judicial review
+    result: Refused/Dismissed
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Valles Julie Ann Caranto
+    reason: Applicant seeking judicial review of Board's decision refusing her late appeal filing regarding non-refoulement claim
+  
+  - entity_name: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
+    reason: Respondent who made the decision refusing to allow late filing of notice of appeal/petition
+  
+  - entity_name: Director of Immigration
+    reason: Interested party who made initial decisions rejecting applicant's non-refoulement claims on various grounds
+  
+  - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung
+    reason: Judge who decided the application and refused leave for judicial review
+  
+  - entity_name: Valles Oscar Paderon
+    reason: Applicant's husband, alleged source of abuse and threat forming basis of non-refoulement claim
+  
+  - entity_name: Loan sharks (unnamed)
+    reason: Alleged source of threat to applicant forming part of basis for non-refoulement claim

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_5/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+plaintiff: "N/A (Coroner's Inquest)"
+defendant: "N/A (Coroner's Inquest)"
+case_reason: "Inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died during a hot air balloon accident in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013"
+judgment_summary: "This is a coroner's inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died in a hot air balloon accident in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013. The balloon caught fire during landing due to a hose fuel leak at the upper portion of the forward right hose connected to burner number 193. All nine deceased died from multiple injuries and burns. The coroner concluded the deaths were deaths by accident. The inquest examined the circumstances of the accident, including maintenance issues, lack of risk assessment by the travel company Kuoni, inadequate information provided to passengers, and insufficient supervision of local service providers. The coroner made recommendations to the Travel Industry Council and Kuoni to improve safety standards, risk assessment procedures, and customer information regarding high-risk activities."
+jurisdiction_code: "HKCRC"
+jurisdiction_name: "Coroner's Court"
+case_location: "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"
+case_object: "Coroner's Inquest"
+judgment_result: "Deaths by accident. Recommendations issued to Travel Industry Council and Kuoni Travel to improve safety standards, risk assessment, customer information, and supervision of destination management companies and local service providers."
+involved_entities:
+  - "HO Oi-hing (Deceased)"
+  - "HO Oi-ying (Deceased)"
+  - "HO Oi-ming (Deceased)"
+  - "TANG Yuk-ling (Deceased)"
+  - "SIU Chi-man (Deceased)"
+  - "KWAN Pui-man Eleni (Deceased)"
+  - "POON Lau-tim (Deceased)"
+  - "TO Sau-ching (Deceased)"
+  - "POON Tak-sze (Deceased)"
+  - "June Cheung (Coroner)"
+  - "Kuoni Travel (China) Ltd."
+  - "Paradise Travel (Destination Management Company)"
+  - "Egyptian Airship and Balloon-Sky Cruise Company"
+  - "Travel Industry Council (TIC)"
+  - "Mr Momen Murad Ali Hussein (Balloon Pilot)"
+  - "Ultramagic S.A. (Balloon Manufacturer)"

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_6/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+plaintiff: "N/A (Coroner's Inquest)"
+defendant: "N/A (Coroner's Inquest)"
+case_reason: "Inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died during a hot air balloon accident in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013"
+judgment_summary: "This is a coroner's inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died in a hot air balloon accident in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013. The balloon caught fire during landing due to a hose fuel leak at the upper portion of the forward right hose connected to burner number 193. All nine deceased died from multiple injuries and burns. The coroner concluded the deaths were deaths by accident. The inquest examined the circumstances of the accident, including maintenance issues, lack of risk assessment by the travel company Kuoni, inadequate information provided to passengers, and insufficient supervision of local service providers. The coroner made recommendations to the Travel Industry Council and Kuoni to improve safety standards, risk assessment procedures, and customer information regarding high-risk activities."
+jurisdiction_code: "HKCRC"
+jurisdiction_name: "Coroner's Court"
+case_location: "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"
+case_object: "Coroner's Inquest"
+judgment_result: "Deaths by accident. Recommendations issued to Travel Industry Council and Kuoni Travel to improve safety standards, risk assessment, customer information, and supervision of destination management companies and local service providers."
+involved_entities:
+  - "HO Oi-hing (Deceased)"
+  - "HO Oi-ying (Deceased)"
+  - "HO Oi-ming (Deceased)"
+  - "TANG Yuk-ling (Deceased)"
+  - "SIU Chi-man (Deceased)"
+  - "KWAN Pui-man Eleni (Deceased)"
+  - "POON Lau-tim (Deceased)"
+  - "TO Sau-ching (Deceased)"
+  - "POON Tak-sze (Deceased)"
+  - "June Cheung (Coroner)"
+  - "Kuoni Travel (China) Ltd."
+  - "Paradise Travel (Destination Management Company)"
+  - "Egyptian Airship and Balloon-Sky Cruise Company"
+  - "Travel Industry Council (TIC)"
+  - "Mr Momen Murad Ali Hussein (Balloon Pilot)"
+  - "Ultramagic S.A. (Balloon Manufacturer)"

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_7/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - N/A (Coroner's Inquest)
+
+defendant:
+  - N/A (Coroner's Inquest)
+
+case_reason: Coroner's inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died during a hot air balloon ride in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013. The inquest examined the cause of death and circumstances connected with the deaths, including the hot air balloon fire that occurred during landing procedures.
+
+judgment_summary: This inquest concerned the deadliest hot air ballooning disaster in history, resulting in 19 deaths, 9 of whom were Hong Kong citizens on a Kuoni Travel tour. On 26 February 2013, a hot air balloon caught fire during landing procedures over Luxor City. The investigation found the probable cause was a hose fuel leak at the upper portion of the forward right hose connected to burner number 193, which ignited and caused major injury to the pilot who was unable to control the fire. Contributing factors included inadequate maintenance procedures and the hose's accumulated high flight hours since 2005. The coroner found all deaths were caused by multiple injuries and burns, concluding they were deaths by accident. The inquest also examined issues regarding travel insurance coverage, risk assessment by travel companies, information provided to tourists about activity risks, and the selection and supervision of local service providers.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCRC
+
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Coroner's inquest
+  - Hot air balloon accident
+  - Deaths by accident
+  - Travel safety
+  - Risk assessment and disclosure
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Inquest into deaths of HO Oi-hing, HO Oi-ying, HO Oi-ming, TANG Yuk-ling, SIU Chi-man, KWAN Pui-man Eleni, POON Lau-tim, TO Sau-ching, and POON Tak-sze
+    result: Deaths by accident - all nine deceased died from multiple injuries and burns sustained during hot air balloon fire in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: June Cheung
+    reason: Coroner who presided over the inquest and delivered the inquisition
+  - entity_name: HO Oi-hing, HO Oi-ying, HO Oi-ming, TANG Yuk-ling, SIU Chi-man, KWAN Pui-man Eleni, POON Lau-tim, TO Sau-ching, POON Tak-sze
+    reason: The nine deceased Hong Kong citizens who died in the hot air balloon accident
+  - entity_name: Kuoni Travel
+    reason: Travel company that organized the Egypt tour and offered the hot air balloon ride as an optional activity
+  - entity_name: Paradise Travel
+    reason: Destination Management Company (DMC) engaged by Kuoni for the Egypt tour arrangements
+  - entity_name: Egyptian Airship and Balloon-Sky Cruise Company (Sky Cruise)
+    reason: Local hot air balloon service provider chosen by Paradise Travel
+  - entity_name: Momen Murad Ali Hussein
+    reason: Pilot of the hot air balloon, aged 29, who survived with serious burn injuries
+  - entity_name: Wilson AU
+    reason: Tour escort from Kuoni Travel who accompanied the deceased
+  - entity_name: LAU Tak ping
+    reason: Senior manager of Kuoni Travel responsible for product designing and tour planning
+  - entity_name: Mr. Chadwick
+    reason: General Aviation Flight Standard Officer (Balloon Operations) from UK Civil Aviation Authority who provided expert evidence
+  - entity_name: Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation
+    reason: Issued the AAIC investigation report in December 2013 on the accident
+  - entity_name: Travel Industry Council (TIC)
+    reason: Hong Kong travel industry regulatory body whose chairman Joseph Tung testified
+  - entity_name: Spanish Civil Aviation Commission of Accidents (CIAIAC)
+    reason: Accredited representative from Spain in the Egyptian investigation

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_9/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+plaintiff:
+- N/A (Coroner's Inquest)
+
+defendant:
+- N/A (Coroner's Inquest)
+
+case_reason: >
+  Coroner's inquest into the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens who died in a hot air balloon 
+  accident in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013. The inquest was held to inquire into the 
+  cause of death and circumstances connected with the deaths, and to make recommendations 
+  to prevent future similar tragedies.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Coroner found that all nine deceased died on the morning of 26 February 2013 during 
+  a hot air balloon ride over Luxor City when the balloon caught fire during the landing 
+  procedure. The fire was caused by a hose fuel leak at the upper portion of the forward 
+  right hose connected to burner number 193. The medical cause of death for all deceased 
+  was multiple injuries and burns. The Coroner concluded that the deaths were deaths by 
+  accident. The inquest revealed significant issues regarding: (1) inadequate risk assessment 
+  by the travel company Kuoni before offering the hot air balloon activity; (2) insufficient 
+  information provided to tour escorts and customers about the risks involved; (3) ambiguous 
+  insurance coverage information; (4) maintenance discrepancies by the Egyptian balloon 
+  operator Sky Cruise; and (5) lack of proper pre-departure checks. The Coroner made 
+  recommendations for travel companies to conduct proper risk assessments, provide clear 
+  information to customers about risks and insurance coverage, and ensure adequate supervision 
+  of local service providers.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCRC
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Coroner's Court
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Nine deceased Hong Kong citizens
+- Hot air balloon (Ultramagic N425, registered as SU 283)
+- Travel insurance coverage
+- Risk assessment procedures
+- Safety information disclosure
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Cause of death was multiple injuries and burns
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: Deaths occurred during hot air balloon ride in Luxor, Egypt on 26 February 2013
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: Fire was caused by hose fuel leak at forward right hose connected to burner number 193
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: Conclusion as to the deaths - deaths by accident
+  established: Y
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: June Cheung, Coroner
+  state_reasons: Presided over the inquest and delivered the inquisition on 7 June 2016
+- name: HO Oi-hing, HO Oi-ying, HO Oi-ming, TANG Yuk-ling, SIU Chi-man, KWAN Pui-man Eleni, POON Lau-tim, TO Sau-ching, POON Tak-sze
+  state_reasons: The nine deceased Hong Kong citizens who died in the hot air balloon accident
+- name: Kuoni Travel
+  state_reasons: Travel company that organized the 10-day Egypt tour and offered the hot air balloon ride as an optional activity; failed to conduct adequate risk assessment
+- name: Paradise Travel
+  state_reasons: Destination Management Company (DMC) engaged by Kuoni for the Egypt tour; responsible for selecting Sky Cruise as the local service provider
+- name: Egyptian Airship and Balloon-Sky Cruise Company (Sky Cruise)
+  state_reasons: Local hot air balloon service provider in Luxor; operated the balloon that caught fire; had maintenance discrepancies
+- name: Mr Momen Murad Ali Hussein
+  state_reasons: Egyptian pilot aged 29 who was piloting the hot air balloon; survived the accident with serious burn injuries; held commercial balloon pilot licence since 2006
+- name: Mr Wilson AU
+  state_reasons: Tour escort from Kuoni who accompanied the deceased on the tour; provided limited safety briefing to tour members
+- name: LAU Tak ping
+  state_reasons: Senior manager of Kuoni responsible for product designing and tour planning; testified that no formal risk assessment was conducted
+- name: Mr Chadwick
+  state_reasons: General Aviation Flight Standard Officer (Balloon Operations) from UK Civil Aviation Authority; provided expert evidence on hot air balloon operations
+- name: Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation
+  state_reasons: Issued the AAIC investigation report in December 2013 which concluded the probable cause was hose fuel leak
+- name: Travel Industry Council (TIC)
+  state_reasons: Industry regulatory body; Chairman Mr Joseph Tung testified at the inquest
+

en_cases_hkcrc/2026_HKCrC_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Next of kin of the 39 deceased persons
+
+defendant:
+- N/A (Inquest proceeding)
+
+case_reason: >
+  Inquest into the deaths of 39 persons arising out of the collision between passenger vessels 
+  Lamma IV and Sea Smooth on 1 October 2012 off Lamma Island. The inquest was ordered by the 
+  Court of Appeal on 26 July 2023 to examine six specific issues not fully addressed in the 
+  Commission of Inquiry or criminal proceedings, including whether Cheoy Lee knew the bulkhead 
+  was to be built watertight, whether damage stability calculations were properly conducted, 
+  whether port hull bow plating was attached to Sea Smooth at collision, whether Lamma IV's 
+  coaming was lower than required, whether the bulkhead was properly inspected, and the long 
+  working hours of seafarers.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Coroner's Court conducted an inquest into the deaths of 39 passengers aboard Lamma IV, 
+  which sank within 118 seconds after colliding with Sea Smooth on 1 October 2012. The collision 
+  occurred at approximately 8:20pm in waters off Shek Kok Tsui, northwest of Lamma Island. The 
+  port side bow of Sea Smooth struck the port aft quarter of Lamma IV, causing a substantial 
+  breach to Lamma IV's hull. The rapid sinking was attributed to the absence of a watertight 
+  door at the bulkhead separating the Steering Gear Compartment from the Tank Room, allowing 
+  uncontrolled flooding. The court found that 36 deceased died from drowning, while 3 died from 
+  traumatic injuries combined with drowning. The collision was caused by negligent navigation 
+  of both vessels' coxswains, with the Sea Smooth coxswain bearing greater culpability. The 
+  court concluded that each of the 39 deceased was killed unlawfully, applying the civil standard 
+  of proof. The inquest examined 84 witnesses and 364 exhibits over multiple hearing dates in 
+  2025, with verdict delivered on 21-22 January 2026.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCRC
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Coroner's Court
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Lamma IV passenger vessel
+- Sea Smooth passenger ferry
+- Frame ½ Bulkhead (bulkhead between Steering Gear Compartment and Tank Room)
+- Watertight door
+- Hull compartmentation and safety standards
+- Maritime safety regulations
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Whether from the outset Cheoy Lee knew that the Bulkhead was to be built watertight (Issue 1)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Whether Mr. Cheung shifted blame for Damage Stability Calculations mistakes to Mr. Leizaola (Issue 2)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Whether Port Hull Bow Plating was attached to Sea Smooth at time of collision (Issue 3)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Whether coaming of Lamma IV was lower than required (Issue 4)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Whether Bulkhead was inspected annually or bi-annually (Issue 5)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Long working hours of seafarers in passenger ferry industry (Issue 6)
+  established: Pending full verdict analysis
+- allegation_content: Deaths of 39 persons constituted unlawful killing
+  established: Y
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Monica Chow
+  state_reasons: Coroner presiding over the inquest
+- name: The Hongkong Electric Company Limited
+  state_reasons: Organized the outing and operated Lamma IV vessel
+- name: Islands Ferry Company Limited
+  state_reasons: Owned Sea Smooth vessel, wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Holdings Limited
+- name: Cheoy Lee Shipyards Ltd
+  state_reasons: Shipbuilder contracted to construct Lamma IV passenger launch
+- name: Naval-Consult Pte Ltd
+  state_reasons: Singapore-based naval architects who designed Lamma IV based on Eastern District No. 1
+- name: Wuzhou Shipyard
+  state_reasons: Subcontractor in Guangxi, China that constructed the hull of Lamma IV
+- name: Marine Department
+  state_reasons: Regulatory authority responsible for vessel safety standards and inspections
+- name: Commission of Inquiry (COI)
+  state_reasons: Appointed on 22 October 2012 to investigate the collision, submitted report on 19 April 2013 with 13 recommendations
+- name: Coxswain of Sea Smooth
+  state_reasons: Convicted of 39 counts of manslaughter and endangering safety of others at sea
+- name: Coxswain of Lamma IV
+  state_reasons: Convicted of endangering lives of others at sea
+- name: Dr Neville Anthony Armstrong
+  state_reasons: Naval architect expert witness who gave evidence at COI
+- name: Dr Martin Renilson
+  state_reasons: Naval architect expert witness instructed on behalf of Next of Kin
+- name: Mr Ken Lo Ngok Yang
+  state_reasons: Director of Cheoy Lee responsible for liaising with Naval-Consult on Lamma IV design
+- name: Mr Cheung Chuen Yau
+  state_reasons: Engineering Manager at Cheoy Lee, responsible for damage stability calculations
+- name: Court of Appeal
+  state_reasons: Ordered the inquest to be held on 26 July 2023 and identified six issues for determination
+

en_cases_hkct/2018_HKCT_4/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - TACHING PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Case management conference regarding procedural matters in Competition Tribunal proceedings transferred from the High Court, where Meyer raised a defence alleging that Taching and Shell colluded in price fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: This was a case management conference for Competition Tribunal Action No 1 of 2018, which was transferred from the High Court. Meyer raised a common defence in two separate High Court actions (HCA 1929/2017 and HCA 1069/2018) alleging that Taching and Shell colluded in price fixing over the years in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance. The Tribunal addressed several procedural issues including whether Meyer should file an originating notice of application, whether Meyer should file pleadings in the Competition Tribunal, whether Meyer should be given general leave to file a rejoinder, whether the High Court Actions should be consolidated or tried together with the Tribunal proceedings, costs for Shell's application for intervention, and whether there should be separate orders for the Tribunal and the High Court Actions. The Tribunal directed that Meyer need not file an ONA but must file Points of Defence setting out its case on all competition issues. General leave to file a rejoinder was declined. All four sets of proceedings were directed to be listed and heard together for directions until further order. Costs of Shell's application for intervention were ordered to be costs in the cause of the Shell Action.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Procedural directions for Competition Tribunal proceedings
+  - Allegations of price fixing in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Whether Meyer should file an originating notice of application
+    result: Meyer need not file an ONA but must file Points of Defence
+  - charge: Whether Meyer should be given general leave to file a rejoinder
+    result: Declined
+  - charge: Whether proceedings should be consolidated or tried together
+    result: All four sets of proceedings to be listed and heard together for directions until further order
+  - charge: Costs for Shell's application for intervention in the Taching Action
+    result: Costs to be in the cause of the Shell Action
+  - charge: Whether there should be separate orders for the Tribunal and the High Court
+    result: Separate orders should be drafted for the two different courts
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Hon Au-Yeung J
+    reason: Judge of the Court of First Instance presiding over the case management conference
+  - entity_name: G Lam J
+    reason: Judge who transferred the Allegation in the Taching Action to the Competition Tribunal on 17 May 2018
+  - entity_name: SHELL HONG KONG LIMITED
+    reason: Intended Intervener in CTA 1/2018 and plaintiff in HCA 1069/2018, dealer in fuel oil who commenced separate action against Meyer
+  - entity_name: Ms Catrina Lam
+    reason: Counsel for Taching, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners
+  - entity_name: Ms Cherry Xu
+    reason: Counsel for Taching, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners
+  - entity_name: Herbert Tsoi & Partners
+    reason: Law firm representing Taching
+  - entity_name: Mr Kenneth K H Lee
+    reason: Counsel for Meyer, instructed by Robertsons
+  - entity_name: Ms Nana Lui
+    reason: Counsel for Meyer, instructed by Robertsons
+  - entity_name: Robertsons
+    reason: Law firm representing Meyer
+  - entity_name: Ms Eva Sit
+    reason: Counsel for Shell, instructed by Clifford Chance
+  - entity_name: Clifford Chance
+    reason: Law firm representing Shell
+  - entity_name: Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)
+    reason: United Kingdom tribunal whose decision in Agents' Mutual Ltd v Gascoigne Halman Ltd [2017] CAT 22 was cited as authority

en_cases_hkct/2020_HKCT_10/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Competition Commission
+
+defendant:
+- Quantr Limited
+- CHEUNG Man Kit
+
+case_reason: >
+  Enforcement action by the Competition Commission against Quantr Limited and its director 
+  Cheung Man Kit for contravention of the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition 
+  Ordinance. The respondents engaged in price-fixing and bid-rigging by exchanging price-sensitive 
+  information and coordinating their bids with another company in a quotation exercise conducted 
+  by Ocean Park Corporation for a workflow automation project using Nintex software.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Competition Tribunal approved a joint application under the Carecraft procedure for consent 
+  orders. The Tribunal declared that Quantr Limited contravened the First Conduct Rule and that 
+  Cheung Man Kit was involved in the contravention. Quantr Limited was ordered to pay a pecuniary 
+  penalty of HK$37,702.26 to the Government. Further proceedings were stayed on condition that 
+  the respondents implement compliance measures including: circulating Competition Commission 
+  materials to staff, adopting a competition compliance policy, and ensuring staff attend training 
+  on competition law. The respondents were ordered to pay the Commission's costs on a joint and 
+  several basis. The penalty was determined considering the low value of sales (less than HK$150,000), 
+  short duration of contravention, cooperation with the Commission, and admission of facts.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Competition Tribunal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Workflow automation project for Ocean Park Corporation
+- Nintex software license and implementation services
+- Quotation exercise with estimated budget of HK$250,000
+- Pecuniary penalty of HK$37,702.26
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Quantr Limited contravened the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance by engaging in price-fixing and bid-rigging
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: Cheung Man Kit was involved in Quantr Limited's contravention under section 91 of the Ordinance
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: The agreement and concerted practice had the object of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: The conduct constituted serious anti-competitive conduct (price-fixing)
+  established: Y
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Hon Linda Chan J
+  state_reasons: Judge of the Court of First Instance who delivered the judgment approving the consent orders
+- name: Ocean Park Corporation
+  state_reasons: Entity that conducted the quotation exercise for a workflow automation project
+- name: B Co (Company X)
+  state_reasons: Competitor company that engaged in the agreement and concerted practice with Quantr Limited to exchange price information and coordinate bids
+- name: T
+  state_reasons: Director of B Co who communicated with Cheung Man Kit to exchange quotation details
+- name: H
+  state_reasons: Territory Manager - North Asia for Nintex who facilitated communications between the parties and encouraged coordination
+- name: Nintex Pty Limited
+  state_reasons: Australian company that developed the workflow automation software and supplied it through local resale partners
+- name: Harris J
+  state_reasons: Judge who considered the juridical basis for the Carecraft procedure in Competition Commission v Kam Kwong Engineering Company Limited & ors [2020] 4 HKLRD 61
+- name: Godfrey Lam J
+  state_reasons: Judge who established the structured methodological approach for determining pecuniary penalties in Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction Company Limited & ors [2020] 2 HKLRD 1229

en_cases_hkct/2021_HKCT_3/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Competition Commission
+
+defendant:
+- Linde HKO Limited
+- TSE Chun Wah
+- Linde GmbH
+
+case_reason: >
+  Case management conference for directions in a competition enforcement action brought by 
+  the Competition Commission. The primary issue addressed was the procedure for discovery 
+  of documents, particularly whether the Respondents should be ordered to make general 
+  discovery.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Competition Tribunal declined to make an order for the Respondents to make general 
+  discovery at this time. The court held that the Commission failed to follow proper 
+  procedure by not filing a summons in Form 2 as required by Rule 8 of the Competition 
+  Tribunal Rules. The President clarified that there is no presumption that general 
+  discovery is the norm in enforcement actions. The Commission must justify any discovery 
+  order by explaining what documents or categories of documents it seeks, their relevance 
+  to the issues, and why discovery is justified given the Commission's investigatory 
+  powers. The Commission offered to make general discovery of all documents in its 
+  possession relevant to the issues. If the Commission wishes to pursue a discovery 
+  application, it must formulate it properly in line with the court's observations.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Competition Tribunal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Discovery of documents
+- General discovery order
+- Documents obtained through investigatory powers
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Application for Respondents to make general discovery
+  established: N
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Hon Harris J
+  state_reasons: President of the Competition Tribunal who heard the case management conference and delivered the decision
+- name: Mr Jin Pao SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel instructed by Eversheds Sutherland representing the Competition Commission (applicant)
+- name: Mr Timothy Parker
+  state_reasons: Counsel instructed by Eversheds Sutherland representing the Competition Commission (applicant)
+- name: Ms Eva Sit SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel instructed by Linklaters representing the 1st respondent (Linde HKO Limited)
+- name: Mr Joshua Chan
+  state_reasons: Counsel instructed by Linklaters representing the 1st respondent (Linde HKO Limited)
+- name: Mr Nigel Francis
+  state_reasons: Counsel of YTL LLP representing the 2nd respondent (TSE Chun Wah)
+- name: Mr Carter Chim
+  state_reasons: Counsel instructed by Linklaters representing the 3rd respondent (Linde GmbH)

en_cases_hkct/2022_HKCT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Competition Commission
+
+defendant:
+- Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd (金光工程有限公司)
+- Goldfield N&W Construction Company Ltd (聯合金輝建築工程有限公司)
+- Pacific View Engineering Ltd (豪景工程有限公司)
+- CHAN Kam Shui (陳金水)
+- LAM Po Wong (林保旺)
+
+case_reason: >
+  Enforcement action concerning contravention of the First Conduct Rule in relation to 
+  tendering for renovation and redecoration work pursuant to the Hong Kong Housing Authority's 
+  Decoration Contractor System. The case involved market allocation and price fixing agreements 
+  among contractors, with the 3rd and 5th Respondents entering into an illicit arrangement 
+  exploiting the 3rd Respondent's privileged position as a HKHA designated decoration contractor.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Competition Tribunal imposed pecuniary penalties on the 3rd and 5th Respondents for 
+  contravening the First Conduct Rule. The 3rd Respondent (Pacific View Engineering Ltd) was 
+  ordered to pay a penalty of $1,579,000 for contravening the First Conduct Rule. The 5th 
+  Respondent (LAM Po Wong) was ordered to pay a penalty of $280,000 for being involved in the 
+  contravention. The Tribunal rejected the argument that both respondents should be treated as 
+  one undertaking for penalty purposes, holding that each legal person should be penalized 
+  individually under sections 91-93 of the Competition Ordinance. The Tribunal accepted 
+  undertakings from both respondents instead of injunctive relief. The decision followed the 
+  Kam Kwong procedure (analogous to the Carecraft procedure) where respondents conceded 
+  liability through a Statement of Agreed Facts. A 9% reduction was granted for cooperation 
+  and admission of liability.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Competition Tribunal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Decoration Contractor System contracts
+- King Tai Court renovation works
+- Market allocation agreement
+- Price fixing arrangement
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: 3rd Respondent (Pacific View Engineering Ltd) contravened the First Conduct Rule
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: 5th Respondent (LAM Po Wong) was involved in the contravention of the First Conduct Rule
+  established: Y
+- allegation_content: 3rd and 5th Respondents should be treated as one undertaking for penalty purposes
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Uncertainty in the state of law should mitigate penalties
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Contravention is part of long-standing and wide-spread industry practice (aggravating factor)
+  established: N
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Hon Harris J
+  state_reasons: Judge who heard the case in chambers and delivered the decision on penalties on 22 July 2022
+- name: Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA)
+  state_reasons: Authority operating the Decoration Contractor System under which the anti-competitive conduct occurred
+- name: Chan Hong Wing
+  state_reasons: Sole director and shareholder of 3rd Respondent who entered into licence borrowing arrangement with 5th Respondent
+- name: Lee Hiu Leung
+  state_reasons: Head of Litigation at the Competition Commission who filed affidavit regarding financial documents
+- name: Chan Wai Ching
+  state_reasons: Head (Intelligence, Forensics and Leniency) in Operations Division of the Commission
+- name: 1st Respondent (Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd)
+  state_reasons: Co-conspirator in the market allocation and price fixing agreement, previously dealt with in separate penalty decision
+- name: 2nd Respondent (Goldfield N&W Construction Company Ltd)
+  state_reasons: Co-conspirator in the market allocation and price fixing agreement, previously dealt with in separate penalty decision
+- name: 4th Respondent (CHAN Kam Shui)
+  state_reasons: Individual involved in the contravention, previously dealt with in separate penalty decision

en_cases_hkct/2024_HKCT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+plaintiff:
+- Competition Commission
+
+defendant:
+- ATAL Building Services Engineering Limited
+- Analogue Holdings Limited
+- Shun Hing Engineering Contracting Company Limited
+- Shun Hing Holdings Company Limited
+- Ser Ka Wai
+- Cheng Kit Shun
+- Kwan Siu Kin
+- Johnson Controls Hong Kong Limited
+- York International (Northern Asia) Limited
+- Johnson Controls International PLC
+- Lee Yui Ming
+
+case_reason: >
+  Applications for leave to appeal decisions regarding: (1) the timing of Kam Kwong applications 
+  for penalty determination in two competition enforcement actions (CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023), 
+  which the Tribunal directed should be heard together at trial or when all respondents reach 
+  agreement with the Commission; and (2) disclosure of correspondence relating to cooperation 
+  agreements between ATAL's employees and the Commission.
+
+judgment_summary: >
+  The Competition Tribunal refused leave to appeal on both applications. The Tribunal held that 
+  the timing of Kam Kwong applications is a matter of discretion and case management, not raising 
+  a material point of law. The Commission and ATAL had sought one penalty of HK$150,000,000 in 
+  both actions, but accepted that one composite judgment imposing one composite fine in two 
+  proceedings would not be appropriate. The Tribunal directed that Kam Kwong applications in both 
+  actions be dealt with together after trial or when all respondents reach agreement. The Tribunal 
+  also refused leave to appeal the disclosure decision, finding no reasonable prospect of success. 
+  An interim stay was granted on the disclosure decision pending Court of Appeal determination. 
+  The two proceedings were ordered to be heard together. Costs: 80% payable by the Commission, 
+  20% by the 1st Respondent to other respondents.
+
+jurisdiction_code: >
+  HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: >
+  Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location:
+- Competition Tribunal
+- Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+- Kam Kwong applications
+- Pecuniary penalty of HK$150,000,000
+- Cooperation agreements
+- Disclosure of correspondence
+
+judgment_result:
+- allegation_content: Application for leave to appeal decision on timing of Kam Kwong applications
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Application for leave to appeal disclosure decision
+  established: N
+- allegation_content: Application for interim stay of disclosure decision pending Court of Appeal determination
+  established: Y
+
+involved_entities:
+- name: Hon Harris J
+  state_reasons: President of the Competition Tribunal who delivered the decision refusing leave to appeal
+- name: Norman NIP SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel for the Competition Commission (applicant)
+- name: Abraham Chan SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel for ATAL Building Services Engineering Limited (1st respondent)
+- name: Paul Shieh SC
+  state_reasons: Senior Counsel for Johnson Controls respondents (2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023)

en_cases_hkdc/2005_HKDC_216/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - FONG CHI YUNG t/a LONG FAI BUS CO
+
+defendant:
+  - CHEUNG HOI YING
+
+case_reason: Dispute arising from termination of employment relationship between employer (Plaintiff) and employee (Defendant) in September 2002, involving claims for breach of employment contract, conversion of property, and counterclaims for constructive dismissal and employment entitlements.
+
+judgment_summary: This case concerns the termination of employment between the Plaintiff employer (trading as Long Fai Bus Co.) and the Defendant employee (a coach driver) in September 2002. The Plaintiff claimed the employment was terminated by mutual agreement on 14 September 2002 and that the Defendant failed to return a coach (KJ 4376), wireless transceiver, three covers, and boarding tickets, seeking damages of $124,570. The Defendant denied mutual termination and claimed constructive dismissal on 16 September 2002 when the Plaintiff withdrew the coach and demanded return of keys, counterclaiming $23,677.70 for wages in lieu of notice, annual leave pay, and end of year payment. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that oral notice of termination was given on 6 September 2002, noting significant inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's testimony and contradictions with the general manager's earlier testimony at the Labour Tribunal. The evidence supported the Defendant's case that no termination notice was given and that he was constructively dismissed when the coach was repossessed on 16 September 2002.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Breach of employment contract
+  - Tort of conversion
+  - Constructive dismissal
+  - Employment entitlements (wages in lieu of notice, annual leave pay, end of year payment)
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Plaintiff's claim for breach of employment contract and conversion
+    result: Dismissed (court found no mutual termination on 14 September 2002)
+  - charge: Defendant's counterclaim for constructive dismissal
+    result: Allowed (court found constructive dismissal on 16 September 2002)
+  - charge: Defendant's counterclaim for employment entitlements
+    result: Partially allowed (wages in lieu of notice and annual leave pay granted; end of year payment determination pending)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Deputy District Judge J. Ko
+    reason: Presiding judge who heard the case and delivered the judgment
+  - entity_name: Ms. Wong
+    reason: Counsel representing the Plaintiff
+  - entity_name: Mr. Iu
+    reason: Solicitor representing the Defendant
+  - entity_name: Man Tat Shing (MAN)
+    reason: General manager of Long Fai Bus Company, witness for Plaintiff, held 99.99% shareholding in Long Fai Bus Limited
+  - entity_name: Li Kwok Wing (LI)
+    reason: Supervisor of coaches at Long Fai Bus Company, witness for Plaintiff
+  - entity_name: Yuen Kin Wing (YUEN)
+    reason: Driver at Long Fai Bus Company, witness for Defendant
+  - entity_name: Mr. Cheng Yee-yan
+    reason: Driver at Long Fai Bus Company, attended meetings on 6 September 2002
+  - entity_name: Long Fai Bus Company (Long Fai)
+    reason: Sole proprietorship owned by Plaintiff, employer in the employment relationship
+  - entity_name: Long Fai Bus Limited (LF Limited)
+    reason: Company incorporated on 10 June 2002, related entity in business transfer arrangement
+  - entity_name: Avonwin Holdings Tour Limited (Avonwin)
+    reason: Company incorporated on 26 June 2002, related entity sharing same office address
+  - entity_name: Labour Tribunal
+    reason: Forum where initial claim was filed (LBTC 10532/2002) and partial award made before transfer to District Court
+  - entity_name: Labour Department
+    reason: Government department consulted by Defendant on 16 September 2002 regarding employment dispute
+

en_cases_hkdc/2009_HKDC_282/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - SUPER POWER PROPERTIES LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - TANG HING CHEUNG
+
+case_reason: Application to set aside judgment entered in default on 10 February 2009, concerning whether the Writ had been duly served on the Defendant on 17 October 2008 through insertion into the letterbox at the Defendant's last known residential address.
+
+judgment_summary: The District Court heard an application to set aside a default judgment entered on 10 February 2009. The Defendant claimed he never received the Writ served by insertion through his letterbox at Flat B, rear block, 14th Floor, Wai On Building, 1A Austin Road, Kowloon on 17 October 2008. The court found the Defendant presented a credible case that the Writ may have been mis-delivered due to confusing building entrances and letterbox arrangements. The Plaintiff's representative failed to identify which specific letterbox was used for service. Following Po Kwong Marble Factory Limited v Wah Yee Decoration Co Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 157, the court found service irregular and set aside the judgment without regard to the merits of the proposed Defence, with costs to the Defendant.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Setting aside default judgment
+  - Service of process
+  - Irregular service of Writ
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application to set aside default judgment entered on 10 February 2009
+    result: Application granted; judgment set aside with costs to the Defendant including reserved costs
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Mimmie Chan
+    reason: District Judge who heard the application and rendered the decision on 27 November 2009
+  - entity_name: Kent Yee
+    reason: Counsel for the Plaintiff, instructed by Messrs Chu & Lau
+  - entity_name: Bethany M.Y. Chan
+    reason: Counsel for the Defendant, instructed by Rowdget W. Young & Co.
+  - entity_name: Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
+    reason: Government department that informed the Defendant about the court order on 3 March 2009
+  - entity_name: Po Kwong Marble Factory Limited v Wah Yee Decoration Co Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 157
+    reason: Binding precedent case cited for the principle that judgment must be set aside when service is irregular
+  - entity_name: Wai On Building
+    reason: Building at 1A Austin Road, Kowloon where service was attempted and found to have confusing letterbox arrangements

en_cases_hkdc/2013_HKDC_1253/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - GAO Huachang (D1)
+  - GAO Shixin (D2)
+  - CAI Jingxiang (D3)
+
+case_reason: Theft of endangered Incense Tree (Aquilaria sinensis) wood and illegal remaining in Hong Kong after unlawful entry. The defendants entered Hong Kong illegally and stole 44.8kg of Incense Tree wood by cutting, causing irreplaceable damage to Hong Kong's natural forests and endangered flora.
+
+judgment_summary: The three defendants pleaded guilty to theft and illegal remaining charges. They were arrested on 29 May 2013 while carrying 44.8kg of Incense Tree wood (valued at $3,863,000) and tools for harvesting. They had entered Hong Kong unlawfully between 27-29 May 2013. The court adopted a starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment for theft, reduced by 1/3 for guilty pleas. D2 received additional reduction due to his young age (19 at time of offence). The prosecution successfully applied for 25% sentence enhancement under section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance due to the harm caused to the community and endangered species. Final sentences: D1 and D3 received 38 months imprisonment (35 months for theft + 3 months consecutive for illegal remaining); D2 received 33 months imprisonment (30 months for theft + 3 months consecutive for illegal remaining).
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Tsim Kong Tung near Yung Shue Au, Sha Tau Kok, Hong Kong
+
+case_object:
+  - Theft of endangered Incense Tree (Aquilaria sinensis) wood
+  - Illegal remaining in Hong Kong after unlawful entry
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210
+    defendant: GAO Huachang (D1)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 35 months imprisonment
+  - charge: Remaining in Hong Kong without authority after landing unlawfully contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap.115
+    defendant: GAO Huachang (D1)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 15 months imprisonment (3 months consecutive)
+  - charge: Total sentence
+    defendant: GAO Huachang (D1)
+    result: 38 months imprisonment
+  - charge: Theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210
+    defendant: GAO Shixin (D2)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 30 months imprisonment
+  - charge: Remaining in Hong Kong without authority after landing unlawfully contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap.115
+    defendant: GAO Shixin (D2)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 15 months imprisonment (3 months consecutive)
+  - charge: Total sentence
+    defendant: GAO Shixin (D2)
+    result: 33 months imprisonment
+  - charge: Theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210
+    defendant: CAI Jingxiang (D3)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 35 months imprisonment
+  - charge: Remaining in Hong Kong without authority after landing unlawfully contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap.115
+    defendant: CAI Jingxiang (D3)
+    result: Guilty plea, sentenced to 15 months imprisonment (3 months consecutive)
+  - charge: Total sentence
+    defendant: CAI Jingxiang (D3)
+    result: 38 months imprisonment
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Deputy District Judge A. Yim
+    reason: Presiding judge who delivered the sentence and reasons for sentence
+  - entity_name: Miss Sheroy Tam
+    reason: Senior Public Prosecutor from Department of Justice representing HKSAR
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Prosecution authority representing HKSAR
+  - entity_name: Mr Kam Yee Wai Andrew
+    reason: Defense counsel from Messrs. Kam & Fan, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, representing all defendants
+  - entity_name: Messrs. Kam & Fan
+    reason: Law firm providing legal representation for defendants
+  - entity_name: Director of Legal Aid
+    reason: Authority that assigned legal representation for defendants
+  - entity_name: Director of Immigration
+    reason: Authority whose authorization was required for lawful remaining in Hong Kong
+  - entity_name: Mr Pang Kuen-shum
+    reason: Conservation Officer from Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Department who provided expert statement on endangered species impact
+  - entity_name: Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Department
+    reason: Government department responsible for flora conservation, provided expert evidence on impact to endangered species
+

en_cases_hkdc/2019_HKDC_677/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+plaintiff: LI KUEN KWAI JAY and LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN
+defendant: LOK CHUN CHEONG and CHUNG KIT CHU
+case_reason: Water seepage dispute between flat owners in a multi-storied residential building
+judgment_summary: This case concerns a water seepage dispute in South Horizon Development, Apleichau. The plaintiffs, owners of Flat 5E, claimed water seepage from the defendants' Flat 6E above affected their Guest Bathroom, Master Bathroom, and corridor ceilings. Despite four rounds of repair works by defendants and multiple investigations by the Management Office and Joint Office (FEHD and BD), Fluorescent Dye Tests (FDT) consistently produced negative results. Expert witnesses conducted various tests including visual inspection, infrared scan, flow meter test, FDT, Electrical Moisture Meter (EMM), and Microwave Leakage Detection (MLD). The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove, on balance of probabilities, that seepage originated from the defendants' premises. The multiple negative FDT results from both experts and independent parties over six years (2012-2018) were deemed reliable and conclusive. The action was dismissed.
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location: Hong Kong
+case_object: Civil dispute regarding property damage and nuisance caused by alleged water seepage
+judgment_result: Action dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to prove that water seepage originated from defendants' premises. Defendants ordered to pay costs.
+involved_entities:
+  - LI KUEN KWAI JAY (Plaintiff, co-owner of Flat 5E)
+  - LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN (Plaintiff, co-owner of Flat 5E)
+  - LOK CHUN CHEONG (1st Defendant, owner of Flat 6E)
+  - CHUNG KIT CHU (2nd Defendant, owner of Flat 6E)
+  - Deputy District Judge Barbara Wong (Presiding Judge)
+  - Ms Lau Shan La (Plaintiffs' Expert Witness)
+  - Mr Tsang Chun Wang (Defendants' Expert Witness)
+  - Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD)
+  - Buildings Department (BD)
+  - South Horizons Management Office

en_cases_hkdc/2021_HKDC_611/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - NG SHEUNG YEE
+
+case_reason: Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The defendant failed to comply with a red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing on Tai Po Road and struck a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing when the pedestrian light was green.
+
+judgment_summary: The defendant, a 76-year-old surgeon with 52 years of medical practice and an impeccable driving record since 1967, pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving. On 2 November 2019, while driving private car GH 9701 on Tai Po Road, the defendant failed to stop at a red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing outside Savannah College of Art and Design and struck Mr Tam, who was crossing legally. Mr Tam sustained a fractured right ankle requiring surgery and 189 days of sick leave. The court found the defendant's driving fell within the intermediate category of culpability, accepting that he did not deliberately run the red light but failed to keep proper lookout due to inattention. The court adopted a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment after trial, reduced to 9 months for the late guilty plea. Considering the defendant's age, positive good character, significant contributions to medicine and society, clean traffic record, genuine remorse, and responsibility to care for his disabled wife, the court suspended the 9-month sentence for 12 months. The defendant was also disqualified from driving for 2 years and ordered to pass a competency test before driving again.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm
+  - Traffic safety at pedestrian crossings
+  - Sentencing considerations for elderly offenders of good character
+  - Suspended sentence in exceptional circumstances
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving contrary to section 36A of the Road Traffic Ordinance
+    result: Guilty plea accepted. Sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months. Disqualified from driving for 2 years. Ordered to pass driving competency test before resuming driving.
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: HH Judge Dufton
+    reason: District Judge who presided over the case and delivered the sentence
+  - entity_name: Mr Phil Chau
+    reason: Counsel on fiat representing HKSAR (prosecution)
+  - entity_name: Mr Derek Chan SC
+    reason: Senior Counsel leading the defence team for the defendant
+  - entity_name: Ms Jolie Chao
+    reason: Defence counsel assisting Mr Derek Chan SC
+  - entity_name: Ms Vanessa Ho
+    reason: Defence counsel assisting Mr Derek Chan SC
+  - entity_name: Wong & Co
+    reason: Solicitors instructing the defence counsel
+  - entity_name: Mr Tam
+    reason: Victim who was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing at a pedestrian crossing, sustained fractured right ankle
+  - entity_name: Mr Chan (witness)
+    reason: Driver of light goods vehicle SX 9182 who witnessed the accident and stopped at the red light
+  - entity_name: Dr Kan
+    reason: Neurologist consulted by the defendant regarding possible medical explanation for the incident
+  - entity_name: Savannah College of Art and Design
+    reason: Location landmark where the pedestrian crossing and accident occurred on Tai Po Road

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - KWAN SIU WA BECKY
+  - WU YEE MEI VERA
+  - HO KIT MAN JENNY
+
+defendant:
+  - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Claims regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP) following the introduction of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance (EAO), specifically concerning the interpretation of provisions in sections 41 and 41C of the Employment Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Labour Tribunal heard three consolidated claims (LBTC 2827/2008, 2828/2008 & 2829/2008) concerning the proper calculation of statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay under the amended Employment Ordinance. The case involved interpretation of sections 41 and 41C which define "wages" and establish the methodology for calculating daily rates of holiday pay and annual leave pay. The decision addressed the calculation period (12 months or shorter period) and the treatment of various types of paid leave days in the wage calculation. A corrigendum was issued on 22 January 2009 to correct the quoted provisions of sections 41 and 41C.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Statutory holiday pay calculation
+  - Annual leave pay calculation
+  - Employment rights under Employment Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Claims regarding statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay calculation
+    result: Decision on liability rendered on 12 January 2009 (specific outcome not detailed in excerpt)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong
+    reason: Deputy Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision
+  - entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
+    reason: Clerk to the Deputy Presiding Officer who issued the corrigendum
+  - entity_name: Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+    reason: Legislative amendment that changed the provisions for calculating statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay
+  - entity_name: Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282)
+    reason: Referenced legislation regarding compensation for temporary incapacity
+

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - WU YEE MEI VERA
+
+defendant:
+  - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Claim regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP) following the introduction of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance (EAO), specifically concerning the interpretation of provisions in sections 41 and 41C of the Employment Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Labour Tribunal heard consolidated claims (LBTC 2827/2008, 2828/2008 & 2829/2008) concerning the proper calculation of statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay under the amended Employment Ordinance. This case (LBTC 2828/2008) was one of three consolidated claims brought by cabin crew members against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited. The case involved interpretation of sections 41 and 41C which define "wages" and establish the methodology for calculating daily rates of holiday pay and annual leave pay. The decision addressed the calculation period (12 months or shorter period) and the treatment of various types of paid leave days in the wage calculation. A corrigendum was issued on 22 January 2009 to correct the quoted provisions of sections 41 and 41C.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Statutory holiday pay calculation
+  - Annual leave pay calculation
+  - Employment rights under Employment Ordinance
+  - Wage calculation methodology
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Claim regarding statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay calculation
+    result: Decision on liability rendered on 12 January 2009 (specific outcome not detailed in excerpt)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong
+    reason: Deputy Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision
+  - entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
+    reason: Clerk to the Deputy Presiding Officer who issued the corrigendum
+  - entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY
+    reason: Co-claimant in consolidated case LBTC 2827/2008
+  - entity_name: HO KIT MAN JENNY
+    reason: Co-claimant in consolidated case LBTC 2829/2008
+  - entity_name: Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+    reason: Legislative amendment that changed the provisions for calculating statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay
+  - entity_name: Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282)
+    reason: Referenced legislation regarding compensation for temporary incapacity in wage calculation provisions

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_3/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - KWAN SIU WA BECKY
+  - WU YEE MEI VERA
+  - HO KIT MAN JENNY
+
+defendant:
+  - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Claims regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP) following the introduction of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance (EAO), specifically concerning the interpretation of provisions in sections 41 and 41C of the Employment Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Labour Tribunal heard three consolidated claims (LBTC 2827/2008, 2828/2008 & 2829/2008) concerning the proper calculation of statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay under the amended Employment Ordinance. The case involved interpretation of sections 41 and 41C which define "wages" and establish the methodology for calculating daily rates of holiday pay and annual leave pay. The decision addressed the calculation period (12 months or shorter period) and the treatment of various types of paid leave days in the wage calculation. A corrigendum was issued on 22 January 2009 to correct the quoted provisions of sections 41 and 41C.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Statutory holiday pay calculation
+  - Annual leave pay calculation
+  - Employment rights under Employment Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Claims regarding statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay calculation
+    result: Decision on liability rendered on 12 January 2009 (specific outcome not detailed in excerpt)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong
+    reason: Deputy Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision
+  - entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
+    reason: Clerk to the Deputy Presiding Officer who issued the corrigendum
+  - entity_name: Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+    reason: Legislative amendment that changed the provisions for calculating statutory holiday pay and annual leave pay
+  - entity_name: Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282)
+    reason: Referenced legislation regarding compensation for temporary incapacity

en_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - CHENG KWOK WAH (鄭國華)
+  - LAI AH LOI (黎亞來)
+  - LIU FAT HOI (廖發開)
+  - HO CHING HOI (何清海)
+  - HSU CHE CHEONG (徐志中)
+
+defendant:
+  - LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED (利興清潔服務有限公司)
+
+case_reason: Claims for severance payments and terminal payments by five claimants (3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Claimants) against their employer under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Labour Tribunal heard claims from five claimants seeking severance payments and terminal payments from their employer. After trial hearings held between March and June 2012, the Presiding Officer ruled on 13 July 2012 that the claims for severance payments were allowed, awarding amounts ranging from HK$3,003.42 to HK$21,848 to the five claimants, totaling HK$66,918.15. The claims for terminal payments were dismissed. The Defendant applied for review on 6 August 2012, but the application was rejected as no new grounds were presented beyond those already considered and rejected at trial. The Defendant's application for stay of payment-out of the judgment sum was also dismissed, considering the senescent claimants' circumstances and the low prospect of appeal success.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Severance payments
+  - Terminal payments
+  - Employment rights under Labour Tribunal Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Claims for severance payments
+    result: Allowed - HK$13,412.05 to 3rd Claimant, HK$3,003.42 to 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to 9th Claimant, HK$13,826.82 to 11th Claimant
+  - charge: Claims for terminal payments
+    result: Dismissed
+  - charge: Defendant's application for review
+    result: Rejected
+  - charge: Defendant's application for stay of payment-out
+    result: Dismissed
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Michelle Lam
+    reason: Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision on review
+  - entity_name: Edmund Cham
+    reason: Solicitor who vetted the judgment translation
+  - entity_name: Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary
+    reason: Translated the judgment
+  - entity_name: Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap 25)
+    reason: Legislative framework under which the claims were brought and interest calculated under section 39(3)

en_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - CHENG KWOK WAH (鄭國華)
+  - LAI AH LOI (黎亞來)
+  - LIU FAT HOI (廖發開)
+  - HO CHING HOI (何清海)
+  - HSU CHE CHEONG (徐志中)
+
+defendant:
+  - LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED (利興清潔服務有限公司)
+
+case_reason: Claims for severance payments and alternatively terminal payments arising from the termination of employment following the expiry of a government service contract (FEHD Street Cleaning Services Contract for Wanchai) on 31 December 2011, where the employer attempted to re-deploy workers to different workplaces with varied working conditions.
+
+judgment_summary: Five cleaning workers claimed severance payments after their employer's government service contract expired. The workers were employed under Government Standard Employment Contracts tied to the FEHD contract (FEHDSC/63/09) for street cleaning services in Wanchai from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. When the contract expired, the employer attempted to re-deploy them to different locations with changed working hours. The Tribunal found that the employment contracts contained an implied term that they would terminate with the expiry of the FEHD contract, or alternatively, that the employer's unilateral variation of major employment conditions (workplace and working hours) constituted constructive dismissal. The Tribunal ruled that the workers were dismissed by reason of redundancy under sections 31B and 31D of the Employment Ordinance, and the employer was liable for severance payments.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Severance payment claims
+  - Terminal payment claims
+  - Employment contract termination
+  - Constructive dismissal
+  - Government Standard Employment Contracts
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Claims for severance payments and terminal payments
+    result: Claims allowed - Defendant liable for severance payments under sections 31B and 31D of the Employment Ordinance
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Michelle Lam
+    reason: Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision
+  - entity_name: Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD)
+    reason: Government department that entered into the street cleaning services contract with the defendant
+  - entity_name: Labour Department
+    reason: Government department that facilitated meetings between the parties and received worker complaints
+  - entity_name: Cleaning Workers Union
+    reason: Union that represented workers' interests and participated in meetings with the employer
+  - entity_name: Wu Mei-lin
+    reason: Officer of the Cleaning Workers Union who represented workers at meetings
+  - entity_name: Woo Ching Sum Connie
+    reason: Executive Director of the defendant company who represented the employer
+  - entity_name: Wong Shuk Yin
+    reason: Deputy Human Resources Officer of the defendant who gave evidence in court
+  - entity_name: Employment Ordinance (Cap 57)
+    reason: Primary legislation governing employment rights, severance payments, and dismissal procedures
+  - entity_name: Minimum Wage Ordinance
+    reason: Legislation implemented on 1 May 2011 that triggered revision of employment contracts
+  - entity_name: Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] 1 QB 761
+    reason: Case law cited regarding the legal principle of constructive dismissal

en_cases_hkldt/1983_HKLDT_145/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+plaintiff: CHOW CHI KEUNG
+defendant: CHINA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY LIMITED
+case_reason: Statutory Electricity Easements - compensation for diminution in value of property
+judgment_summary: |
+  This is the first application for compensation under the Electricity Networks (Statutory Easements) Ordinance Cap. 357. The applicant, registered Crown lessee of Lot 998 in Demarcation District 130, New Territories (202.34 square metres), sought compensation for diminution in property value due to registration of statutory easement for 400 KV transmission network. The Tribunal held that: (1) registration of easement and existence of oversails diminished open market value of property, entitling owner to compensation; (2) residential buildings permitted under Modification of Tenancy should be included in valuation despite being revocable; (3) no compensation payable for risk of future loss or damage, but remedies for persons suffering actual loss available at common law and under statutory cause of action by way of damages. The Tribunal awarded compensation of $10,000 for diminution in value attributable to the registration of the order and construction of transmission lines over the property.
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of Hong Kong
+case_location: New Territories, Hong Kong
+case_object: Agricultural land with residential and farming buildings (Lot 998, Demarcation District 130)
+judgment_result: Compensation awarded to applicant
+involved_entities:
+  - CHOW CHI KEUNG (Applicant/Crown lessee)
+  - CHINA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY LIMITED (Respondent/Power company)
+  - His Honour Judge Cruden (Presiding Officer)
+  - M.W. Phillips, Esq. (Member)
+  - Secretary of Lands and Works
+  - Lands Department

en_cases_hkldt/2004_HKLDT_32/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - CHAN YUK WAH
+
+defendant:
+  - RICHARDS, CAMERON KEITH
+
+case_reason: Part IV Possession Application seeking to recover arrears of rent and possession of a semi-detached house property at No.67B, 10th Street, Hong Lok Yuen. The dispute centered on whether there was a valid agreement to reduce monthly rent from $18,000 to $15,500, and whether the tenant had paid the required rent in full.
+
+judgment_summary: The Lands Tribunal heard a possession application (LDPD 1380/2004) concerning rental arrears for a property leased since 6 September 2002. The landlord claimed the tenant failed to pay full rent from October 2003, resulting in arrears. The tenant argued he had paid in full based on an agreement to reduce rent from $18,000 to $15,500 per month. The tribunal examined correspondence between the parties, including a letter dated 21 May 2003 marked "Without Prejudice" offering rent reduction, the tenant's acceptance on 10 October 2003, and the landlord's attempted repudiation on 17 October 2003. Despite finding that consideration existed (tenant giving up early termination rights under Clause 4 of Schedule II), the tribunal ruled that the "Without Prejudice" letter should not be disclosed and therefore concluded there was no valid rent reduction agreement. The tribunal rejected the tenant's defense regarding outstanding repair works, stating repair issues do not justify non-payment of rent.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Recovery of rental arrears
+  - Possession of leased property
+  - Validity of rent reduction agreement
+  - Interpretation of "Without Prejudice" correspondence
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Arrears of rent from 6 March 2004 to 5 April 2004
+    result: Respondent ordered to pay $3,840 in arrears
+  - charge: Arrears of rent/mesne profits from 6 April 2004 until delivery of vacant possession
+    result: Respondent ordered to pay at rate of $18,000 per month
+  - charge: Possession of property
+    result: Vacant possession to be delivered to Applicant if Respondent fails to pay within 14 days (relief from forfeiture available if paid within 14 days)
+  - charge: Costs
+    result: Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's costs fixed at $800
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: C.Y. LAM
+    reason: Member of the Lands Tribunal who presided over the case and delivered the judgment on 16 July 2004
+  - entity_name: LEUNG Yiu-ki
+    reason: Representative of the Applicant (landlord's husband) who appeared in court
+  - entity_name: High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4
+    reason: Referenced legislation providing the 14-day payment period for relief from forfeiture

en_cases_hkldt/2006_HKLDT_29/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - SOUND VIEW ENTERPRISES LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - CHAN KAI LUNG LERRY
+
+case_reason: Application before the Lands Tribunal concerning a matter between Sound View Enterprises Limited and Chan Kai Lung Lerry. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the available excerpt.
+
+judgment_summary: The Lands Tribunal heard Application No. LDPD 1477 of 2006 on 12 September 2006, with judgment handed down on 4 October 2006. A corrigendum was issued on 31 January 2007 to correct typographical errors in the judgment, specifically correcting the spelling of "Mennai" to "Mannai" in paragraphs 14 and 15 on page 6 of the original judgment. The case was presided over by Deputy Judge WONG.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Lands Tribunal application
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application No. LDPD 1477 of 2006
+    result: Judgment rendered on 4 October 2006 (specific outcome not detailed in excerpt)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Deputy Judge WONG
+    reason: Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal who heard the case and rendered the judgment
+  - entity_name: Carmen Leung
+    reason: Clerk to Deputy Judge WONG who issued the corrigendum on 31 January 2007
+  - entity_name: Mannai
+    reason: Referenced case or entity mentioned in the judgment (corrected spelling in corrigendum)

en_cases_hkldt/2008_HKLdT_130/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
+
+case_reason: Application for review of a case management decision dated 3 November 2008 concerning whether multiple rating appeals should be consolidated and heard together or whether a single test appeal should proceed with other appeals stayed pending its outcome.
+
+judgment_summary: The Lands Tribunal heard an application for review under section 11A of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance regarding a case management decision. The applicant sought to review the decision that designated a single case as a test appeal with other appeals stayed. The Tribunal held that the review process is a two-stage process - first deciding whether there should be a review, then conducting the review if warranted. The Tribunal ruled that respondents are entitled to be heard at the first stage, disagreeing with the ex parte approach in Good Trader Limited v Hinking Investment Limited. The application for review was refused, with the Tribunal maintaining that the test appeal procedure was the appropriate case management approach. The applicant's arguments regarding potential refunds and a new 2008 appeal were found insufficient to warrant revisiting the earlier decision.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Review of case management decision
+  - Consolidation of rating appeals
+  - Test appeal procedure
+  - Section 11A of Lands Tribunal Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application for review of case management decision
+    result: Application refused; test appeal procedure maintained
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Hon Lam J
+    reason: President of the Lands Tribunal who presided over the application and delivered the judgment
+  - entity_name: Mr Richard Wilmot
+    reason: Counsel for the Applicant, instructed by Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan
+  - entity_name: Mr Bernard Man
+    reason: Counsel for the Respondent, instructed by the Department of Justice
+  - entity_name: Good Trader Limited v Hinking Investment Limited
+    reason: Case cited (LDCS1000/2006) regarding ex parte review applications, which the Tribunal disagreed with
+  - entity_name: Solar Max Limited v Homex Investment Limited
+    reason: Case cited (LT358/1997) holding that respondents are entitled to be heard at the first stage of review
+  - entity_name: Lee King Sin v Stikeman, Elliott
+    reason: Labour Tribunal case cited (HCLA83/2000) regarding review procedures
+  - entity_name: Judge Wong
+    reason: Presiding officer in Good Trader case who held that first stage could be ex parte
+  - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge Kwan
+    reason: Judge in Lee King Sin case that influenced the Good Trader decision
+  - entity_name: HEC
+    reason: Entity with related appeals mentioned in the judgment regarding consolidated appeals and refund timing
+  - entity_name: Lands Tribunal Ordinance
+    reason: Legislation governing the review process under section 11A

en_cases_hkldt/2009_HKLdT_5/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION
+
+defendant:
+  - YING KONG COMPANY LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Claims for management fees in arrears for the period between 2005 and 2007, with disputes arising over the construction of the deed of mutual covenants (DMC) governing the building. The respondent challenged the proceedings on grounds that the applicant's solicitors were contracted without proper tender procedure as required under sections 20A(2) and (2B) of the Building Management Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Lands Tribunal heard five consolidated building management applications (LDBM 371-375/2007) originally filed as small claims. The respondent Ying Kong Company Limited sought to strike out or stay the applications, arguing that the Incorporated Owners contracted their solicitors (S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co) without following mandatory tender procedures under section 20A of the Building Management Ordinance. The Tribunal examined whether the legal costs exceeded the threshold requiring tender (HK$200,000 or 20% of annual budget, whichever is lesser), and analyzed the effect of non-compliance with section 20A. The Tribunal held that even if section 20A(2) was breached, the contract with solicitors would be voidable rather than void, and could not be set aside without the owners' resolution or court order under section 20A(7). The Tribunal found no basis to strike out the applications, set aside the solicitors' notice to act, or impose personal costs liability on the solicitors. The respondent's amended summons was dismissed with costs to the applicant.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Building management fees recovery
+  - Solicitor procurement procedures under Building Management Ordinance
+  - Interpretation of section 20A tender requirements
+  - Validity of legal representation contracts
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Application to strike out or stay proceedings for lack of proper authority
+    result: Application dismissed
+  - charge: Application to set aside solicitors' notice to act
+    result: Application dismissed
+  - charge: Application for personal costs order against solicitors
+    result: Application dismissed
+  - charge: Overall outcome
+    result: Respondent's amended summons dismissed with costs to the applicant on District Court scale with certificate for counsel
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: His Hon Judge Leung (Simon Leung, District Judge)
+    reason: Presiding Officer who heard the case and rendered the decision
+  - entity_name: S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co
+    reason: Solicitors acting for the Incorporated Owners whose authority to act was challenged
+  - entity_name: Raymond Tong & Co
+    reason: Solicitors acting for the respondent Ying Kong Company Limited
+  - entity_name: Kenneth Lam
+    reason: Counsel instructed by S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co for the applicant
+  - entity_name: Douglas Lam
+    reason: Counsel instructed by Raymond Tong & Co for the respondent
+  - entity_name: Building Management Ordinance (section 20A)
+    reason: Key legislation governing procurement of services by incorporated owners, central to the dispute
+  - entity_name: Small Claims Tribunal
+    reason: Original forum where the five claims were filed before transfer to Lands Tribunal
+  - entity_name: Jet Foil Mansion
+    reason: Multi-storey building at 415-421 Jaffe Road, Wanchai, subject of the management dispute
+  - entity_name: Wong Tak Keung Stanley v The Management Committee of the Incorporated Owners of Grenville House (CACV 244/2003)
+    reason: Court of Appeal decision cited regarding mandatory nature of section 20A(2) compliance
+  - entity_name: The Incorporated Owners of Hip Wo House v Gallant King Development Limited (CACV 429/2006)
+    reason: Court of Appeal decision cited regarding effect of non-compliance rendering contract voidable rather than void
+  - entity_name: Speedy Gainer Limited v The Incorporated Owners of Malahon Apartments (CACV 336/2004)
+    reason: Case cited as example of indemnity principle application in costs disputes
+
+

en_cases_hkmagc/2005_HKMagC_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - CHAN NAI MING
+
+case_reason: Criminal prosecution for distribution of infringing copies of copyright works using BitTorrent file-sharing system, contrary to section 118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528. The defendant seeded three films on the Internet without commercial purpose but to an extent prejudicial to copyright owners.
+
+judgment_summary: This landmark case represents the first prosecution in Hong Kong (and possibly worldwide) for copyright infringement using BitTorrent technology. The defendant uploaded three films to the Internet using BitTorrent, creating .torrent files and publishing them on a newsgroup accessible to anyone. He acted as the original seeder, maintaining his Internet connection to enable 35-40 users to download each film. The Magistrate emphasized that Hong Kong's firm deterrent sentencing policy for copyright infringement applies equally to non-commercial distribution via the Internet. Despite the absence of commercial gain, the court found the potential harm to copyright owners substantial due to the insidious nature of Internet distribution and the risk of re-distribution. The defendant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment (concurrent on three charges), with a warning that future offenders may face longer terms comparable to commercial piracy cases.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: Magistrates' Court at Tuen Mun, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Copyright infringement
+  - Distribution of infringing copies
+  - BitTorrent file-sharing technology
+  - Intellectual property rights protection
+  - Internet-based copyright piracy
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Distribution of infringing copies of copyright works using BitTorrent (section 118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528) - three charges relating to three films
+    result: Convicted. Sentenced to three months' imprisonment (concurrent sentences). Appeal dismissed on 12 December 2006 (HCMA1221/2005).
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Colin Mackintosh
+    reason: Magistrate who presided over the case and delivered the sentence and reasons for sentence on 7 November 2005
+  - entity_name: BitTorrent
+    reason: File-sharing technology used by the defendant to distribute infringing copies of films through packet switching system
+  - entity_name: Copyright Ordinance, Cap. 528
+    reason: Legislation under which the defendant was prosecuted, specifically section 118(1)(f) for non-commercial distribution of infringing copies
+  - entity_name: Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334
+    reason: Court of Appeal case cited as authority for firm deterrent sentencing policy in copyright infringement cases, establishing that immediate custodial sentences should be imposed unless circumstances are truly exceptional
+  - entity_name: R v Ng Wai-chin, HCMA 1309/1996
+    reason: Earlier case cited regarding international pressure on Hong Kong to stamp out traffic in pirated goods and protect intellectual property rights
+  - entity_name: Customs officers
+    reason: Investigators who monitored the defendant's BitTorrent activities and downloaded complete copies of the films as part of the investigation

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_13/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - Securities and Futures Commission
+
+defendant:
+  - C.L. Management Services Limited
+  - AU Suet-ming, Clarea
+
+case_reason: Eight summonses alleging that C.L. Management Services Limited (D1) and AU Suet-ming, Clarea (D2) carried on or held themselves out as carrying on a business in a regulated activity, namely advising on corporate finance, without a licence in relation to three client companies (3 Wells Group Holdings Limited, UK Fur Limited, and New Bonus Holdings Limited), in contravention of sections 114(1) and 114(8) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance.
+
+judgment_summary: The Eastern Magistrates Court convicted D1 of three "holding-out" offences under section 114(1)(b) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (ESS 39231/2013, 30673/2013, and 30675/2013) and D2 of three corresponding attributable offences under section 390 (ESS 39232/2013, 30674/2013, and 30676/2013). The court found that D1 held itself out to the three client companies as carrying on a business in advising on corporate finance by signing Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreements that clearly represented D1 as an "exclusive financial adviser" providing advisory services concerning listing matters. D1 was acquitted of the "carrying on" offence (ESS 30671/2013) regarding 3 Wells as the court found insufficient evidence of continuity. The court ruled that offences under section 114 create strict liability falling within the second alternative (prosecution need not prove mens rea, but defendant can raise honest and reasonable belief as defence), and that "without reasonable excuse" is an element of the offence. D1 was fined a total of $900,000 and D2 was fined $600,000 and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months. Both defendants appealed against convictions and sentences.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: Eastern Magistrates Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Unlicensed carrying on of regulated activity (advising on corporate finance)
+  - Holding out as carrying on regulated activity without licence
+  - Strict liability offences under Securities and Futures Ordinance
+  - Attributable liability of corporate officers
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: ESS 30671/2013 - Carrying on business in advising on corporate finance without licence (3 Wells)
+    result: D1 acquitted
+  - charge: ESS 30672/2013 - Attributable offence for D2 (3 Wells carrying on)
+    result: D2 acquitted
+  - charge: ESS 39231/2013 - Holding out as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (3 Wells)
+    result: D1 convicted, fined $300,000
+  - charge: ESS 39232/2013 - Attributable offence for D2 (3 Wells holding out)
+    result: D2 convicted, fined $200,000 and 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months
+  - charge: ESS 30673/2013 - Holding out as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (UK Fur)
+    result: D1 convicted, fined $400,000
+  - charge: ESS 30674/2013 - Attributable offence for D2 (UK Fur)
+    result: D2 convicted, fined $300,000 and 3 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months (concurrent)
+  - charge: ESS 30675/2013 - Holding out as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (New Bonus)
+    result: D1 convicted, fined $200,000
+  - charge: ESS 30676/2013 - Attributable offence for D2 (New Bonus)
+    result: D2 convicted, fined $100,000 and 3 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months (concurrent)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: June Cheung
+    reason: Magistrate who presided over the case and delivered the verdict and statement of findings
+  - entity_name: Michael ANG
+    reason: Agent engaged by D2 responsible for dealing with the three client companies; refused to give evidence due to risk of self-incrimination
+  - entity_name: 3 Wells Group Holdings Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1 for listing on GEM Board
+  - entity_name: UK Fur Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1 for listing in Hong Kong
+  - entity_name: New Bonus Holdings Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1 for listing in Hong Kong
+  - entity_name: Clement CHEUK
+    reason: Chairman of 3 Wells who testified as prosecution witness (PW1)
+  - entity_name: Phoebe Lee
+    reason: Chief Financial Officer of 3 Wells who testified as prosecution witness (PW2)
+  - entity_name: Pat WONG
+    reason: Chairman of UK Fur who testified as prosecution witness (PW3)
+  - entity_name: WONG Kam-fai
+    reason: Chairman of New Bonus who testified as prosecution witness (PW4)
+  - entity_name: PO Wing-kay
+    reason: Counsel for the Prosecution, instructed by the Securities and Futures Commission
+  - entity_name: Peter Duncan, SC
+    reason: Senior Counsel for D1 and D2
+  - entity_name: Edwin Choy
+    reason: Counsel for D1 and D2, instructed by Haldanes
+  - entity_name: Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR
+    reason: Landmark Court of Final Appeal case establishing principles for strict liability offences and the five alternatives for mental requirements
+  - entity_name: Kulemesin Yuriy & Tang Dock Wah v HKSAR
+    reason: Court of Final Appeal case that reformulated the five alternatives for mental requirements in strict liability offences
+  - entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission v Yu Ka Tak
+    reason: Court of First Instance case holding that "without reasonable excuse" is an element of the offence under section 114
+  - entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission v Liu Su Ke
+    reason: Court of First Instance case that came to different conclusion regarding "without reasonable excuse" under section 328

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_6/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - HO CHUNG YI HENRY
+  - WONG PAK LAM
+  - HIEN LEE ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Criminal prosecution involving multiple defendants in Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts. The case involved technical evidence regarding PR (Proctor Ratio) and LDR (Load Deflection Ratio) test results, with normal ranges being LDR of 2 or more and PR within 0.15 to 0.2.
+
+judgment_summary: The Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts heard six consolidated cases (KCS 4906-4911/2013) presided over by Chief Magistrate Mr Clement Lee. The trial took place over 23 days from 27 November to 17 December 2013 (15 days) and 10 to 17, 20 February 2014 (8 days). The verdict was delivered on 9 April 2014, with corrigenda issued on 11 April 2014. The corrigenda corrected technical details regarding normal test result ranges for PR and LDR, and corrected the spelling of counsel's name from "Tony Jenkyn-Jones" to "Toby Jenkyn-Jones". The case involved analysis of test samples, with particular attention to sample no. S3 which had PR figures close to the normal range of 0.2.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Criminal prosecution
+  - Technical evidence analysis (PR and LDR test results)
+  - Engineering-related offences
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Criminal charges against multiple defendants (specific charges not detailed in excerpt)
+    result: Verdict delivered on 9 April 2014 (specific outcome not detailed in excerpt)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Chief Magistrate Mr Clement Lee
+    reason: Presiding magistrate who heard the case and delivered the verdict
+  - entity_name: Jenny Cheng
+    reason: Clerk to Chief Magistrate who issued the corrigenda
+  - entity_name: Mr Toby Jenkyn-Jones
+    reason: Legal counsel representing one of the parties in the case
+  - entity_name: PW8
+    reason: Prosecution witness who provided expert testimony on PR and LDR test results
+  - entity_name: Hien Lee Engineering Company Limited
+    reason: Corporate defendant in the criminal proceedings

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_7/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - Securities and Futures Commission
+
+defendant:
+  - C.L. Management Services Limited
+  - AU Suet-ming, Clarea
+
+case_reason: Eight summonses alleging that the defendants carried on or held themselves out as carrying on a business in advising on corporate finance without a licence, contrary to section 114 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance. The case involved three client companies (3 Wells Group Holdings Limited, UK Fur Limited, and New Bonus Holdings Limited) to whom the defendants allegedly provided unlicensed corporate finance advisory services related to listing on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong.
+
+judgment_summary: The Eastern Magistrates Court convicted C.L. Management Services Limited (D1) of three summonses (ESS 39231/2013, 30673/2013, and 30675/2013) concerning "holding-out" offences under section 114(1)(b) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, and convicted AU Suet-ming, Clarea (D2) of three corresponding attributable offences under section 390. The court imposed fines totaling $900,000 on D1 and $600,000 on D2, and sentenced D2 to 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months. The judgment addressed key legal issues including whether the offences were strict liability offences, the meaning of "without reasonable excuse", and whether D1 could be liable for acts of D2's agent Michael ANG. The court held that the presumption of mens rea should be displaced for section 114(1) offences, that "without reasonable excuse" is an element of the offence that the prosecution must prove, and that the offences fall within the third alternative of intermediate liability requiring proof of absence of due diligence or honest and reasonable belief.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: Eastern Magistrates Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Unlicensed carrying on of regulated activity (advising on corporate finance)
+  - Holding out as carrying on regulated activity without licence
+  - Corporate officer liability for company offences
+  - Strict liability offences under Securities and Futures Ordinance
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: ESS 39231/2013 - Holding out to 3 Wells Group Holdings Limited as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (D1)
+    result: Convicted
+  - charge: ESS 30673/2013 - Holding out to UK Fur Limited as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (D1)
+    result: Convicted
+  - charge: ESS 30675/2013 - Holding out to New Bonus Holdings Limited as carrying on business in advising on corporate finance (D1)
+    result: Convicted
+  - charge: ESS 39232/2013 - Attributable offence as officer of D1 (D2)
+    result: Convicted
+  - charge: ESS 30674/2013 - Attributable offence as officer of D1 (D2)
+    result: Convicted
+  - charge: ESS 30676/2013 - Attributable offence as officer of D1 (D2)
+    result: Convicted
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: June Cheung
+    reason: Magistrate who presided over the trial and delivered the verdict and statement of findings
+  - entity_name: Michael ANG
+    reason: Agent engaged by D2 to deal with client companies; was called as prosecution witness but declined to give evidence citing self-incrimination concerns
+  - entity_name: 3 Wells Group Holdings Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1 for listing on GEM Board; paid HK$300,000 to D1
+  - entity_name: UK Fur Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1; paid HK$600,000 and granted 14,400,000 option shares to D1
+  - entity_name: New Bonus Holdings Limited
+    reason: Client company that entered into Professional Financial Consultation Services Agreement with D1; paid HK$170,000 to D1
+  - entity_name: Clement CHEUK
+    reason: Chairman of 3 Wells Group Holdings Limited; testified as prosecution witness (PW1)
+  - entity_name: Phoebe Lee
+    reason: Chief Financial Officer of 3 Wells Group Holdings Limited; testified as prosecution witness (PW2)
+  - entity_name: Pat WONG
+    reason: Chairman of UK Fur Limited; testified as prosecution witness (PW3)
+  - entity_name: WONG Kam-fai
+    reason: Chairman of New Bonus Holdings Limited; testified as prosecution witness (PW4)
+  - entity_name: Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited
+    reason: The stock exchange where the client companies sought to be listed on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) Board
+  - entity_name: Securities and Futures Ordinance
+    reason: The legislation under which the offences were charged, specifically sections 114 and 390

en_cases_hkmagc/2023_HKMagC_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - HKSAR
+
+defendant:
+  - CHOW HANG TUNG (鄒幸彤)
+  - TANG NGOK KWAN (鄧岳君)
+  - TSUI HON KWONG (徐漢光)
+
+case_reason: Failure to comply with notice to provide information under section 3(1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The defendants, as office-bearers of Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKA), were served with a notice on 25 August 2021 requiring them to provide specified information within 14 days, which they failed to comply with by 8 September 2021.
+
+judgment_summary: The West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts heard Criminal Case No. 3633 of 2021 concerning the defendants' failure to comply with a notice issued under Schedule 5 of the Implementation Rules for NSL Article 43. The case involved two preliminary issues: (1) whether the defence could challenge the legality of the Notice in a criminal trial, and (2) whether the prosecution needed to prove the subject organisation was in fact a foreign agent. The court ruled that the prosecution need not prove HKA was a foreign agent as a matter of fact, as it is an administrative decision rather than an essential element of the offence. The court also ruled that the defence is entitled to challenge the legality of the Notice at trial. The main trial focused on the legality of the Notice issued by the Commissioner of Police with approval from the Secretary for Security. The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe HKA was a "foreign agent" and whether it was necessary to issue the notice for prevention and investigation of offences endangering national security. Public Interest Immunity was claimed to protect ongoing investigations into other organizations. The defendants challenged the Notice on multiple grounds including infringement of rights against self-incrimination, fair trial rights, freedom of association, and privacy protection, as well as claims of unreasonableness, oppression, and ulterior motive.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - National security law enforcement
+  - Foreign agent regulation
+  - Information disclosure requirements
+  - Compliance with police notices under Implementation Rules for NSL Article 43
+  - Rights against self-incrimination and fair trial
+  - Freedom of association and privacy protection
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Failure to comply with notice to provide information under Schedule 5, section 3(1)(b) of Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the National Security Law
+    result: Verdict delivered on 4 March 2023 (specific outcome detailed in full judgment)
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Peter Law
+    reason: Principal Magistrate who presided over the case and delivered the verdict
+  - entity_name: Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKA)
+    reason: The organization subject to the notice, incorporated in 1989 under the Companies Ordinance, subsequently wound up
+  - entity_name: Superintendent Hung (PW1)
+    reason: Police officer in charge of the investigation team who prepared the investigation report and applied for the Schedule 5 Notice
+  - entity_name: Commissioner of Police
+    reason: Authority who issued the notice under Schedule 5 with approval from Secretary for Security
+  - entity_name: Secretary for Security
+    reason: Authority who approved the issuance of the Schedule 5 notice
+  - entity_name: Chief Secretary
+    reason: Provided supporting affirmation for Public Interest Immunity claim
+  - entity_name: Department of Justice
+    reason: Provided legal advice protected by Legal Professional Privilege
+  - entity_name: Companies Registry
+    reason: Registry where HKA was incorporated and from which it was struck off
+  - entity_name: Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+    reason: The legal framework under which the notice was issued, specifically Schedule 5 regarding regulation of foreign agents
+  - entity_name: National Security Law (NSL)
+    reason: The primary legislation under which the Implementation Rules were promulgated, particularly Article 43

en_cases_hkoat/2007_HKOAT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
+
+defendant:
+  - ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED
+  - THE SUN NEWS PUBLISHER LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Determination under Section 29(5) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390) regarding whether two newspaper articles published on 2 December 2005 containing photographs of model Kelly Brook topless on a beach were indecent and unsuitable for publication to juveniles.
+
+judgment_summary: The Obscene Articles Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Part V of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance to determine whether two articles published in Oriental Daily (page C21) and The Sun (page C54) were indecent. Both articles featured a main photograph showing model Kelly Brook topless with actor boyfriend Billy Zane on a beach, with nipples and aureoles obscured by small squares. The Tribunal applied Section 10 guidance considering moral standards, dominant effect, readership, honest purpose, and Section 2B definition (unsuitable for juveniles under 18). The Tribunal rejected arguments regarding publishers' intentions and prohibited comparison with previously classified materials. The Tribunal found the photographs were given prominent effect, contained gratuitous portrayals of the body and breasts with vivid language, had wide readership reaching all ages, and glorified the naked body in a titillating manner. Both articles were determined to be indecent beyond reasonable doubt.
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKOAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Obscene Articles Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Obscene and indecent articles determination
+  - Publication standards for newspapers
+  - Protection of juveniles from indecent content
+  - Media regulation and censorship
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Publication of indecent article in Oriental Daily on 2 December 2005 (OATD30/2006, ESS12681/2006)
+    result: Determined to be indecent
+  - charge: Publication of indecent article in The Sun on 2 December 2005 (OATD31/2006, ESS12812/2006)
+    result: Determined to be indecent
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: W LEUNG
+    reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal who delivered the judgment
+  - entity_name: LAM Koon-kun
+    reason: Adjudicator in the Tribunal
+  - entity_name: Tse Wun-shuen, Edward
+    reason: Adjudicator in the Tribunal
+  - entity_name: Agnes CHAN
+    reason: Senior Government Counsel appearing for TELA
+  - entity_name: CHENG Huan
+    reason: Senior Counsel appearing for both publishers
+  - entity_name: Paul LEUNG
+    reason: Counsel appearing for both publishers
+  - entity_name: Kelly Brook
+    reason: Model featured in the photographs at issue
+  - entity_name: Billy Zane
+    reason: Actor and boyfriend of Kelly Brook featured in the photographs
+  - entity_name: Starpix
+    reason: International pictures seller who provided the photographs
+  - entity_name: Lam J
+    reason: Judge in Court of First Instance who held that comparison with previously classified materials should be prohibited
+  - entity_name: Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390)
+    reason: Primary legislation under which the determination was made

en_cases_hkoat/2007_HKOAT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
+
+defendant:
+  - ORIENTAL DAILY PUBLISHER LIMITED
+  - THE SUN NEWS PUBLISHER LIMITED
+
+case_reason: Determination under Section 29(5) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390) regarding whether two newspaper articles published on 2 December 2005 containing photographs of model Kelly Brook with exposed breasts (nipples obscured) were indecent and unsuitable for publication to juveniles.
+
+judgment_summary: The Obscene Articles Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Part V of Cap. 390 to determine whether articles published in Oriental Daily (page C21) and The Sun (page C54) were indecent. Both articles featured prominent photographs of Kelly Brook topless on a beach with Billy Zane, with nipples obscured by small squares. The Tribunal applied Section 10 guidance considering five matters: moral standards, dominant effect, readership, honest purpose, and suitability for juveniles under Section 2B. The Tribunal held that publishers' intentions (except honest purpose) were irrelevant, and prohibited reference to previously classified materials following Lam J's judicial review decision. The Tribunal found the photographs were given prominent effect, the newspapers had wide readership reaching all ages, the articles contained gratuitous portrayals of the body and breasts with vivid language, and the titillating content glorified the naked female body. Both articles were determined to be indecent beyond reasonable doubt as they were not suitable for publication to juveniles (persons under 18 years).
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKOAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: Obscene Articles Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+
+case_object:
+  - Control of obscene and indecent articles
+  - Classification and determination of indecent publications
+  - Protection of juveniles from indecent content
+  - Newspaper publication standards
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: Publication of indecent article in Oriental Daily on 2 December 2005
+    result: Determined to be indecent
+  - charge: Publication of indecent article in The Sun on 2 December 2005
+    result: Determined to be indecent
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: W LEUNG
+    reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal who delivered the judgment
+  - entity_name: LAM Koon-kun
+    reason: Adjudicator in the Tribunal
+  - entity_name: Tse Wun-shuen, Edward
+    reason: Adjudicator in the Tribunal
+  - entity_name: Agnes CHAN
+    reason: Senior Government Counsel appearing for TELA (Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority)
+  - entity_name: CHENG Huan
+    reason: Senior Counsel appearing for both defendant publishers
+  - entity_name: Paul LEUNG
+    reason: Counsel appearing for both defendant publishers
+  - entity_name: Kelly Brook
+    reason: Model featured in the photographs at issue
+  - entity_name: Billy Zane
+    reason: Actor and Kelly Brook's boyfriend featured in the photographs
+  - entity_name: Starpix
+    reason: International pictures seller who provided the source photographs
+  - entity_name: Lam J
+    reason: Judge in Court of First Instance whose judicial review decision prohibited comparison with previously classified materials
+  - entity_name: Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390)
+    reason: Primary legislation under which the determination was made

zh_cases_hkca/2002_HKCA_1116/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 林育麟
+
+defendant:
+  - 入境事務處處長
+
+case_reason: 申請香港特別行政區居留權，涉及《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項關於永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的居留權問題，以及1999年6月26日全國人民代表大會常務委員會對居留權問題的解釋的適用。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及申請人林育麟申請香港居留權的上訴。申請人於1968年5月9日在國內出生，出生時父母都不是香港永久性居民。上訴法庭依據終審法院在吳小彤案的判決及人大常委會解釋，裁定永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女必須符合三項條件之一才可獲法庭頒發濟助：(1)1997年7月1日前已抵港且出生時父母之中最少一人已是永久性居民；(2)有合法期望者；(3)政府寬免政策受惠者。本案申請人不符合任何一項條件，因此沒有居留權，必須先向國內機關取得單程證才可在香港行使永久性居民的居留權。上訴法庭駁回上訴，不作出訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 居留權申請
+  - 《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項的解釋
+  - 永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的權利
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申請香港特別行政區居留權
+    result: 上訴被駁回，申請人不符合居留權條件
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 胡國興
+    reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官，主審法官並頒發判案書
+  - entity_name: 張澤祐
+    reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 何展鵬
+    reason: 律政司政府律師，代表答辯人
+  - entity_name: 終審法院
+    reason: 在吳嘉玲案、陳錦雅案及吳小彤案中作出相關判決
+  - entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+    reason: 於1999年6月26日對居留權問題作出解釋
+  - entity_name: 《基本法》
+    reason: 第24條第2款第(3)項及第22條第4款為本案法律依據
+  - entity_name: 《入境條例》
+    reason: 第11條、第13條和第19(1)條賦予入境事務處處長酌情決定權

zh_cases_hkca/2002_HKCA_3476/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 李杏彬
+
+defendant:
+  - 入境事務處處長
+
+case_reason: 申請人就香港特別行政區居留權提出上訴，涉及《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項關於永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的居留權問題。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及居留權申請。申請人於1959年4月2日在國內出生，出生時父母都不是香港永久性居民。上訴法庭根據終審法院在吳小彤案的判決及人大常委會1999年6月26日的解釋，裁定申請人不符合三項可獲濟助條件的任何一項：(1)1997年7月1日前已抵港且出生時父母之中最少一人已是永久性居民；(2)有合法期望者；(3)政府寬免政策受惠者。因此，申請人沒有居留權，必須先向國內機關取得單程證才可在香港行使永久性居民的居留權。上訴法庭駁回上訴，不作出訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 居留權申請
+  - 《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項的解釋
+  - 永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的權利
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申請香港特別行政區居留權
+    result: 上訴被駁回
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 梁紹中
+    reason: 高等法院首席法官，主審法官之一，頒發上訴法庭判案書
+  - entity_name: 胡國興
+    reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 張澤祐
+    reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 黃惠沖
+    reason: 律政司高級政府律師，代表答辯人
+  - entity_name: 何展鵬
+    reason: 政府律師，代表答辯人
+  - entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+    reason: 於1999年6月26日對居留權問題作出解釋
+  - entity_name: 吳嘉玲及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 1999年1月29日終審法院判決的相關案例
+  - entity_name: 陳錦雅及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 1999年1月29日終審法院判決的相關案例
+  - entity_name: 吳小彤及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 2002年1月10日終審法院判決，對居留權問題作出決定性結論

zh_cases_hkca/2002_HKCA_3796/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 蔡輝揚
+
+defendant:
+  - 入境事務處處長
+
+case_reason: 申請香港特別行政區居留權，涉及《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項關於永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的居留權問題，以及1999年6月26日全國人民代表大會常務委員會對居留權問題的解釋的適用。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案申請人於1955年1月2日在國內出生，出生時父母都不是香港永久性居民。上訴法庭依據終審法院在吳小彤案的判決及人大常委會解釋，裁定申請人不符合三項可獲濟助條件中的任何一項：(1)1997年7月1日前已抵港且出生時父母之中最少一人已是永久性居民；(2)有合法期望者；(3)政府寬免政策受惠者。因此，申請人沒有居留權，必須先向國內機關取得單程證才可在香港行使永久性居民的居留權。上訴法庭駁回上訴，不作出訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 居留權申請
+  - 《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項的解釋
+  - 人大常委會解釋的適用
+  - 單程證要求
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申請香港特別行政區居留權
+    result: 上訴被駁回，申請人無居留權
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 胡國興
+    reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官，主審法官並頒發判案書
+  - entity_name: 朱芬齡
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭法官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 何展鵬
+    reason: 律政司政府律師，代表答辯人
+  - entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+    reason: 於1999年6月26日對居留權問題作出解釋，取代終審法院原有裁決
+  - entity_name: 吳嘉玲及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 1999年1月29日終審法院判決的先例案件，涉及《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項的解釋
+  - entity_name: 陳錦雅及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 1999年1月29日終審法院判決的先例案件，涉及永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女的居留權
+  - entity_name: 吳小彤及其他人士對入境事務處處長案
+    reason: 2002年1月10日終審法院判決，對居留權問題作出決定性結論，為本案提供約束力案例

zh_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_383/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+plaintiff: 香港特別行政區
+defendant: 許樹榮
+case_reason: 危險駕駛引致他人死亡
+judgment_summary: |
+  上訴人許樹榮被控危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪，原審法官判處入獄3年2個月及停牌5年。2012年1月13日，上訴人駕駛公共巴士在九龍灣德福花園斑馬線上撞死一名89歲老婦。原審法官裁定上訴人沒有留意路面情況，未能看見死者橫過斑馬線。上訴人不服判刑提出上訴。上訴法庭認為上訴人並非罔顧路人安全，而是沒有充分留意路面情況，其罪責較輕。考慮到上訴人任職司機30多年無任何交通違例紀錄，上訴法庭將量刑基準由3年6個月減至3年，扣減6個月後判處2年6個月監禁。上訴得直，刑期由3年2個月減為2年6個月，其他判令維持不變。
+jurisdiction_code: HKCA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+case_location: 九龍灣德福花園C座對開斑馬線
+case_object: 刑事判刑上訴
+judgment_result: 上訴得直，刑期由3年2個月減為2年6個月，停牌5年及駕駛改進課程令維持不變
+involved_entities:
+  - 上訴人：許樹榮（61歲，職業司機）
+  - 死者：89歲老婦
+  - 原審法官：區域法院法官郭啟安
+  - 上訴法庭：高等法院上訴法庭副庭長楊振權、高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲
+  - 上訴人代表：大律師伍家聰（法律援助署委派）
+  - 答辯人代表：律政司高級檢控官趙偉天

zh_cases_hkca/2020_HKCA_729/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+plaintiff: 香港特別行政區
+defendant: 盧耀國
+case_reason: 猥褻侵犯罪
+judgment_summary: 上訴人於區域法院經審訊後被裁定「猥褻侵犯罪」罪名成立，判處兩年監禁。上訴人不服定罪及判刑提出上訴許可申請，原訟法庭法官拒絕定罪上訴許可但批准判刑上訴許可及保釋申請。2020年7月15日，上訴法庭裁定判刑上訴得直，將兩年監禁改為可獲即時釋放的刑期。上訴人就訟費申請，包括法律意見費用、上訴許可申請聆訊、保釋申請聆訊及判刑上訴聆訊的費用。上訴法庭批准訟費申請，但認為本案無需兩名大律師處理，只批准一名大律師的費用。如雙方未能就訟費金額達成協議，則交由聆案官處理。
+jurisdiction_code: HKCA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+case_location: 香港
+case_object: 刑事上訴案件
+judgment_result: 判刑上訴得直，刑期由兩年監禁改為可獲即時釋放的刑期；訟費申請部分批准，只限一名大律師費用
+involved_entities:
+  - 盧耀國（上訴人）
+  - 香港特別行政區（答辯人）
+  - 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌
+  - 高等法院原訟法庭法官彭寶琴
+  - 區域法院法官葉佐文
+  - 高等法院原訟法庭法官黃崇厚
+  - 律政司高級檢控官潘藹蓮
+  - 林佩琼律師行
+  - 李紹強資深大律師
+  - 劉日雄大律師

zh_cases_hkcfa/1999_HKCFA_73/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 吳嘉玲
+  - 吳丹丹
+  - 徐權能
+
+defendant:
+  - 入境事務處處長
+
+case_reason: 關於香港特別行政區永久性居民身分及居留權的司法覆核案件，涉及《基本法》第24條關於永久性居民類別的解釋，特別是在香港以外出生的中國籍子女（第三類別人士）的居留權問題，以及《人民入境（修訂）（第2號及第3號）條例》的合憲性問題。
+
+judgment_summary: 終審法院審理三宗合併上訴案件，涉及在內地出生的中國籍人士聲稱根據《基本法》第24條第2款第三類別擁有香港永久性居民身分及居留權。法院裁定：（1）特區法院有權審核全國人民代表大會及其常務委員會的立法行為是否符合《基本法》；（2）《基本法》第24條不受第22條第4款規限，永久性居民享有不受限制的居留權；（3）「第3號條例」要求持有單程證才可享有居留權的規定違憲，但居留權證明書核實計劃本身合憲；（4）追溯條文違憲；（5）附表1第1(2)(b)段歧視非婚生子女違憲；（6）臨時立法會合法。判決確立了永久性居民的居留權為核心憲法權利。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 永久性居民身分
+  - 居留權
+  - 《基本法》第24條解釋
+  - 憑藉血緣取得居留權
+  - 非婚生子女權利
+  - 立法機關合憲性審查
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 司法覆核申請要求確認永久性居民身分及居留權
+    result: 上訴得直。裁定申請人屬《基本法》第24條第2款第三類別永久性居民，享有居留權。「第3號條例」中要求持有單程證的規定違憲並予刪除，追溯條文違憲，非婚生子女歧視條款違憲。
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
+    reason: 宣讀一致判決的主審法官
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官烈顯倫
+    reason: 主審法官
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官沈澄
+    reason: 主審法官
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
+    reason: 主審法官
+  - entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士
+    reason: 主審法官
+  - entity_name: 吳錫年
+    reason: 吳嘉玲及吳丹丹的父親及起訴監護人
+  - entity_name: 張妙祥
+    reason: 張麗華的父親及起訴監護人
+  - entity_name: 張麗華
+    reason: 第三宗上訴案的答辯人（交相上訴），非婚生子女
+  - entity_name: 資深大律師張健利
+    reason: 代表申請人的法律代表
+  - entity_name: 資深大律師戴啟思
+    reason: 代表申請人處理臨時立法會問題的法律代表
+  - entity_name: 資深大律師馬道立
+    reason: 代表入境事務處處長的法律代表
+  - entity_name: 原訟庭法官祈彥輝
+    reason: 原審法官
+  - entity_name: 高等法院首席法官陳兆愷
+    reason: 上訴法庭法官
+  - entity_name: 上訴法庭副庭長黎守律
+    reason: 上訴法庭法官
+  - entity_name: 上訴法庭副庭長馬天敏
+    reason: 上訴法庭法官
+  - entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+    reason: 《基本法》解釋權機關
+  - entity_name: 臨時立法會
+    reason: 制定「第2號條例」及「第3號條例」的立法機關，其合法性受到質疑但被裁定合法
+  - entity_name: 《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法》
+    reason: 本案的核心憲法性文件
+  - entity_name: 《中英聯合聲明》
+    reason: 《基本法》制定的基礎文件
+  - entity_name: 《人民入境（修訂）（第2號）條例》
+    reason: 1997年7月1日制定，界定永久性居民類別
+  - entity_name: 《人民入境（修訂）（第3號）條例》
+    reason: 1997年7月10日制定，引入居留權證明書計劃，部分條款被裁定違憲
+  - entity_name: 《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》
+    reason: 根據《基本法》第39條適用於香港的國際人權公約

zh_cases_hkcfa/2005_HKCFA_45/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+plaintiff: 香港電話有限公司（PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LIMITED）
+defendant: 電訊管理局
+case_reason: 上訴委員會是否有酌情權在上訴待決期間暫緩執行電訊管理局局長發出的指示
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及香港電話有限公司就電訊管理局局長根據《電訊條例》第36B(1)(a)(iii)條發出的指示向電訊（競爭條文）上訴委員會提出上訴，並申請在上訴待決期間暫緩執行該指示。上訴委員會主席及上訴法庭均裁定上訴委員會沒有酌情權暫緩執行。終審法院審理後認為，《電訊條例》第32N(2)條僅禁止自動暫緩執行，並未明文禁止酌情暫緩執行。法院裁定，上訴委員會為有效行使其明示獲授予的司法管轄權，具有隱含權力在上訴待決期間酌情暫緩執行有關事項。終審法院判決上訴得直，宣告上訴委員會具有該酌情權，並判給上訴人訟費。
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+case_object: 電訊監管、行政上訴程序、暫緩執行權力
+judgment_result: 上訴得直，宣告上訴委員會具有酌情權在上訴待決期間暫緩執行有關事項
+involved_entities:
+  - 香港電話有限公司（上訴人）
+  - 電訊管理局（答辯人）
+  - 電訊（競爭條文）上訴委員會
+  - 終審法院首席法官李國能
+  - 終審法院常任法官包致金
+  - 終審法院常任法官陳兆愷
+  - 終審法院常任法官李義
+  - 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士

zh_cases_hkcfa/2006_HKCFA_44/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港聯合交易所有限公司
+
+defendant:
+  - 新世界發展有限公司
+  - 拿督鄭裕彤博士
+  - 鄭家純博士
+  - 冼為堅博士
+  - 梁仲豪
+
+case_reason: 香港聯合交易所有限公司對新世界發展有限公司及其四名執行董事展開紀律程序，指控他們違反《上市規則》和上市協議，涉及在2001年3月公布中期業績前選擇性地向某些分析員泄露股價敏感資料。答辯人質疑紀律委員會主席發出的程序指示，認為該指示限制法律代表在聆訊中的作用，侵犯了他們根據《基本法》第35條、《香港人權法案》第10條及普通法下的「程序公平」原則所享有的權利。
+
+judgment_summary: 終審法院裁定上訴得直，推翻上訴法庭的判決。法院裁定紀律委員會並非《基本法》第35條所指的「法院」或「法庭」，因為該條文只適用於行使香港特區獨立司法權的法院。法院亦裁定答辯人過早提出司法覆核，因為他們未能證實程序指示必然導致不公平，且未有首先盡量利用《上市規則》所提供的覆核和上訴渠道。法院強調，普通法下的「程序公平」原則適用於紀律委員會，但是否需要全面法律代表須視乎個別案件的具體情況而定，不能在聆訊開始前預先判定。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 《基本法》第35條的詮釋
+  - 紀律委員會的法律地位
+  - 法律代表權利
+  - 程序公平原則
+  - 司法覆核的時機
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 質疑紀律委員會程序指示的合法性
+    result: 上訴得直，原訟法庭判決獲恢復，答辯人的司法覆核申請被駁回
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
+    reason: 主審法官之一，撰寫判案書
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官陳兆愷
+    reason: 主審法官之一，同意包致金和李義的判決
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
+    reason: 主審法官之一，撰寫主要判案書
+  - entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官鮑偉華爵士
+    reason: 主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官伍爾夫勳爵
+    reason: 主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 原訟法庭法官夏正民
+    reason: 原訟法庭法官，駁回答辯人的司法覆核申請
+  - entity_name: 上訴法庭法官張澤祐
+    reason: 上訴法庭法官，推翻原訟法庭判決（其判決被終審法院推翻）
+  - entity_name: 證券及期貨事務監察委員會
+    reason: 監管港交所的機構
+  - entity_name: 上市委員會
+    reason: 履行港交所職務及職權的機構
+  - entity_name: 紀律委員會
+    reason: 處理紀律事宜的上市委員會小組委員會
+  - entity_name: 上市科
+    reason: 負責執行和實施《上市規則》，調查和跟進紀律事宜
+  - entity_name: 郭先生（Terence Kwok）
+    reason: 新世界企業傳訊部僱員，被指向分析員披露中期利潤數字
+  - entity_name: 高盛（Goldman Sachs）
+    reason: 投資行，其分析員提供新世界中期利潤預測
+  - entity_name: 唯高達（Vickers Ballas）
+    reason: 投資行，其分析員提供新世界中期利潤預測
+  - entity_name: 資深大律師John Griffiths先生
+    reason: 代表答辯人的資深大律師
+  - entity_name: 御用大律師David Pannick先生
+    reason: 代表港交所的御用大律師
+  - entity_name: 資深大律師莊施格先生
+    reason: 代表港交所的資深大律師

zh_cases_hkcfa/2008_HKCFA_22/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 官永義
+  - 陳建成
+
+defendant:
+  - 內幕交易審裁處
+  - 財政司司長
+
+case_reason: 針對內幕交易審裁處根據《證券（內幕交易）條例》進行的研訊提出上訴，主要爭議點包括：《香港人權法案》第10及11條是否適用於有關法律程序；審裁處採用強制對可導致入罪的問題而提供的答案是否符合人權法案；以及審裁處所運用的舉證標準是否適當。
+
+judgment_summary: 終審法院審理兩宗合併上訴（FACV19/2007及FACV20/2007），涉及內幕交易審裁處對官永義和陳建成作出的不利裁決。法院裁定，由於審裁處有權根據《證券條例》第23(1)(c)條判處罰款，有關法律程序涉及對刑事控告作出判定，因此《人權法案》第10及11條適用。法院認為審裁處使用根據《證監會條例》第33(4)條強制取得的證據違反人權法案，且應運用"在無合理疑點下證明"的刑事舉證標準。最終，法院宣告第23(1)(c)條無效，恢復審裁處針對答辯人的不利裁決，但僅恢復根據第23(1)(a)、23(1)(b)和27條作出的命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 內幕交易
+  - 人權保障
+  - 免使自己入罪的特權
+  - 刑事舉證標準
+  - 公正審問權利
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 內幕交易（違反《證券（內幕交易）條例》第9(1)(a)、9(1)(c)及9(1)(e)條）
+    result: 上訴部分得直，宣告《證券條例》第23(1)(c)條無效，恢復審裁處的不利裁決及根據第23(1)(a)、23(1)(b)和27條作出的命令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 李國能
+    reason: 終審法院首席法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 包致金
+    reason: 終審法院常任法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 陳兆愷
+    reason: 終審法院常任法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 李義
+    reason: 終審法院常任法官，主審法官之一
+  - entity_name: 梅師賢爵士
+    reason: 終審法院非常任法官，撰寫主要判詞
+  - entity_name: 永富建設
+    reason: 涉案上市公司，其股票交易涉及內幕交易
+  - entity_name: 永義國際
+    reason: 涉案上市公司，在Pollon Group收購前擁有永富75%股權
+  - entity_name: Pollon Group
+    reason: 收購永富75%股權的公司
+  - entity_name: 證券及期貨事務監察委員會
+    reason: 根據《證監會條例》第33條就內幕交易展開調查的監管機構
+  - entity_name: 鍾奇濤
+    reason: 被財政司司長要求審裁處研訊的涉案人士之一
+  - entity_name: 林平穩
+    reason: 被財政司司長要求審裁處研訊的涉案人士之一
+  - entity_name: 麥明康法官
+    reason: 內幕交易審裁處主席
+  - entity_name: 呂汝漢教授
+    reason: 內幕交易審裁處成員
+  - entity_name: 陳建豐先生
+    reason: 內幕交易審裁處成員
+  - entity_name: 馬道立
+    reason: 高等法院首席法官，上訴法庭成員
+  - entity_name: 鄧國楨
+    reason: 上訴法庭副庭長，上訴法庭成員
+  - entity_name: 石仲廉
+    reason: 原訟法庭法官，上訴法庭成員

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - GA
+  - PA
+  - FI
+  - JA
+
+defendant:
+  - 入境事務處處長
+
+case_reason: 經核實難民及獲確立酷刑聲請人在香港是否享有憲法保障的工作權。爭議點包括《香港人權法案》第14條、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條、《基本法》第33條是否賦予工作權，以及處長行使酌情權拒絕給予工作准許是否構成不人道處遇。
+
+judgment_summary: 終審法院審理四宗合併上訴（FACV 7, 8, 9及10/2013），涉及三名經核實難民（GA、FI、JA）及一名獲確立酷刑聲請人（PA）。上訴人主張他們在香港享有憲法保障的工作權，處長拒絕給予工作准許侵犯了該權利。終審法院裁定：(1) 因《人權法案條例》第11條及英國保留條文，上訴人不能倚賴《人權法案》第14條；(2) 《文化公約》第6條沒有納入香港本地法律；(3) 《基本法》第33條只保障選擇職業的自由，不包括廣泛工作權；(4) 普通法不包含工作權。但法院確認，如禁止工作會引致不人道處遇，處長必須運用酌情權給予工作准許。終審法院一致駁回所有上訴。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 難民工作權
+  - 酷刑聲請人權利
+  - 出入境管制
+  - 人權法案適用範圍
+  - 不人道處遇
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 司法覆核申請，要求確認憲法保障的工作權及撤銷處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定
+    result: 駁回所有上訴。裁定上訴人不享有憲法保障的工作權，但確認如有不人道處遇，處長須給予工作准許。
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
+    reason: 主審法官，撰寫主要判案書
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
+    reason: 主審法官，贊同首席法官判決
+  - entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
+    reason: 主審法官，贊同首席法官判決及陳兆愷法官意見
+  - entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
+    reason: 主審法官，就《基本法》第39(1)條補充意見
+  - entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
+    reason: 主審法官，贊同首席法官判決
+  - entity_name: 原訟法庭法官張舉能
+    reason: 原訟法庭審理本案，部分撤銷處長決定
+  - entity_name: 上訴法庭法官霍兆剛
+    reason: 上訴法庭審理本案，駁回所有上訴
+  - entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
+    reason: 負責處理難民庇護聲請及安排移居
+  - entity_name: 《香港人權法案條例》第11條
+    reason: 關鍵法律條文，排除無權進入及停留於香港的人倚賴人權法案的權利
+  - entity_name: 《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條
+    reason: 上訴人主張的工作權法律依據
+  - entity_name: 《基本法》第33條
+    reason: 規定香港居民有選擇職業的自由
+  - entity_name: 《基本法》第39條
+    reason: 規定國際公約適用於香港的有關規定繼續有效
+  - entity_name: 英國政府1976年保留條文
+    reason: 關於《權利公約》及《文化公約》的保留條文，限制其在香港的適用範圍
+  - entity_name: Ubamaka v Secretary for Security案
+    reason: 重要先例，處理《人權法案條例》第11條的解釋及不人道處遇標準
+  - entity_name: R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department案
+    reason: 英國上議院判例，關於不人道處遇的最低嚴重性標準

zh_cases_hkcfi/2000_HKCFI_1659/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 精誼紙品廠
+
+defendant:
+  - CHAK HAK T/A STANDARD (HONG KONG) CO.
+
+case_reason: 申索人供應衣服標簽給明暉製品公司，明暉支票不能兌現後，明暉東主何小姐告知申索人已將公司出售予被告人，所欠貨款由被告承擔。申索人重新發出發票，何小姐用被告人公司印章蓋印確認。被告人拒付貨款，申索人入禀小額錢債審裁處申索。
+
+judgment_summary: 小額錢債審裁處審裁官於2000年6月5日裁決被告人敗訴，8月9日拒絕其覆核申請。被告人申請上訴許可，高等法院原訟法庭朱芬齡暫委法官於2000年9月26日拒絕被告人的上訴許可申請。審裁官認定何小姐與被告人方面曾協議由被告人承擔欠申索人的貨款，何小姐出任被告人公司營業經理並獲授權使用公司印章，翟先生曾聯絡周先生口頭確認貨款並承諾清還。法官認為何小姐有權代表被告人公司行使公司印章確認欠款，其作為對被告人具法律約束力。涉案三方面已達成對彼此均有約束力的債務轉讓協議。審裁官裁決時也引申《業務轉讓（債權人保障）條例》作為裁決依據。法官認為被告人不能顯示其上訴涉可供爭辯的法律論點，不符合《小額錢債審裁處條例》第28條所規定的上訴範圍。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 貨款債務
+  - 債務轉讓
+  - 代理權限
+  - 公司印章使用
+  - 業務轉讓
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申索貨款
+    result: 小額錢債審裁處裁決申索人勝訴，高等法院拒絕被告人上訴許可申請
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 朱芬齡
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 周先生
+    reason: 申索人精誼紙品廠東主，提供證言
+  - entity_name: 何小姐
+    reason: 明暉製品公司東主，後出任被告人公司營業經理，用公司印章確認發票
+  - entity_name: 翟格先生
+    reason: 被告人的兒子，被告公司負責人，提供證言
+  - entity_name: 明暉製品公司
+    reason: 原欠款公司，被告人在其原址經營業務
+  - entity_name: 《業務轉讓（債權人保障）條例》
+    reason: 審裁官裁決時引申的法律依據
+  - entity_name: 《小額錢債審裁處條例》第28條
+    reason: 規定上訴範圍的法律條文

zh_cases_hkcfi/2006_HKCFI_1998/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 英國保誠保險有限公司
+
+defendant:
+  - 何添
+
+case_reason: 債權人英國保誠保險有限公司申請就欠債人何添作出破產命令。何添曾為呈請人的保險代理，因未能達到工作指標而被終止預支佣金安排，並欠下預支佣金及其他款項合共HK$99,031.86，經多次追討及提出還款建議後仍未償還。
+
+judgment_summary: 高等法院原訟法庭審理破產呈請案件HCB5969/2006。何添於2000年12月加入英國保誠保險有限公司擔任保險代理，簽署四份協議接受預支佣金安排。因未達工作指標，呈請人於2002年1月終止預支佣金安排。何添於2002年8月確認欠款HK$114,701.74，2004年3月確認欠款HK$97,058.26。2004年10月20日，呈請人終止何添的委任。2004年11月17日，呈請人要求償還HK$99,031.86（包括HK$97,058.26預支佣金欠款及HK$1,973.60其他欠款）。呈請人曾提出分期還款建議但何添未接受。2005年8月11日刊登法定要求償債書，2006年7月28日入禀申請破產令。法庭認為何添對債項無實質爭議且無能力償還，因此作出破產命令，訟費由何添資產支付。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 破產呈請
+  - 預支佣金追討
+  - 債務償還
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 破產呈請
+    result: 法庭作出破產命令，呈請人訟費由債務人資產支付
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 關淑馨
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭法官，主審本案並作出破產命令
+  - entity_name: 普衡律師事務所
+    reason: 呈請人的代表律師事務所
+  - entity_name: 蕭泳茵律師
+    reason: 代表呈請人出席的律師
+  - entity_name: 破產管理署
+    reason: 由該署張偉顏大律師代表出席
+  - entity_name: 張偉顏大律師
+    reason: 代表破產管理署出席

zh_cases_hkcfi/2010_HKCFI_1661/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 郭宇謙
+
+case_reason: 上訴人郭宇謙在裁判官席前經審訊被裁定一項猥褻侵犯罪有罪，針對定罪提出上訴。上訴理由包括：裁判官錯誤地裁定上訴人的行為有猥褻成分及/或有猥褻意圖；裁判官沒有充分考慮控方第一證人被觸碰位置的分歧；裁判官以上訴人在警誡口供中說過他的右手觸碰到控方第一證人的臀部以支持定罪並不正確；裁判官沒有充分考慮意外或無意識觸碰。
+
+judgment_summary: 高等法院原訟法庭審理上訴人郭宇謙針對猥褻侵犯罪定罪的上訴案件（案件編號：高院裁判法院上訴案件2010年第278號，原觀塘裁判法院刑事案件2009年第7796號）。控方證據顯示第一證人在街上與男友攜手而行時，感覺股溝被上訴人的手指按下約1秒。辯方案情中上訴人否認非禮，指當時急步行走雙手搖擺，不小心碰到第一證人。法庭審理發現控方證據存在重要疑點：第一證人向女警指稱被觸碰位置先說右邊臀部後說中間股溝，存在重大分歧；第二證人作供時指第一證人在警署時不肯定是否上訴人觸碰她，但身分由始至終沒有爭議，證據有缺餘未能釋疑。法官馮驊認為上訴人所提的兩個疑點均屬重要，第一證人都沒有作出合理解釋，因此即席批准上訴，上訴得直。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 猥褻侵犯罪
+  - 定罪上訴
+  - 刑事上訴司法管轄權
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 猥褻侵犯罪
+    result: 上訴得直，原審定罪被推翻
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 馮驊
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭法官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 陳詠嫻
+    reason: 律政司高級檢控官，代表答辯人香港特別行政區
+  - entity_name: 吳達輝
+    reason: 大律師，由鄧黃張律師事務所轉聘代表上訴人
+  - entity_name: 控方第一證人
+    reason: 聲稱被猥褻侵犯的受害人
+  - entity_name: 控方第二證人
+    reason: 第一證人的男友，目擊者並與上訴人對質後報警

zh_cases_hkcfi/2016_HKCFI_636/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 邱陽
+
+case_reason: 上訴人被控一項侵害人身罪（普通襲擊罪），指其在落馬洲港鐵站以右手推撞港鐵職員（第一控方證人），致使該職員失去重心跌在地上。上訴人否認控罪，經審訊後被裁判官判罪名成立，判監2星期及賠償$2,000給受害人。上訴人不服定罪，提出上訴。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案為裁判法院上訴案件，上訴人邱陽不服粉嶺裁判法院刑事案件2015年第2882號的定罪判決而提出上訴。案發當日，上訴人在落馬洲站港鐵範圍內蹲在地上執拾食物，港鐵職員（受害人）上前要求其離開，雙方發生爭執。上訴人以粗口辱罵職員，拒絕出示身份證，警員到場後上訴人交出身份證並被發出擬檢控通知書。離開現場時，上訴人突然折返並以右手推撞該職員，致其跌倒，背部受創。上訴人辯稱職員假裝跌倒誣告他，並提交手機錄像作為新增證物。高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官陳廣池審理上訴後，認為原審裁判官對證人可信性的評估並無不妥，控方證人證供清晰可靠，而上訴人及其證人的證供前後矛盾、不合情理。法官指出即使受害人沒有跌倒，蓄意觸碰已足以構成普通襲擊罪。最終駁回上訴，維持原判。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 侵害人身罪
+  - 普通襲擊罪
+  - 定罪上訴
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 侵害人身罪（違反第212章第40條）
+    result: 上訴被駁回，維持原審裁判官的定罪判決（判監2星期及賠償$2,000給受害人）
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 陳廣池
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官，主審本上訴案件
+  - entity_name: 周至偉
+    reason: 原審裁判官，在粉嶺裁判法院審訊上訴人並判其罪名成立
+  - entity_name: 馮美琪
+    reason: 律政司高級檢控官，代表香港特別行政區（答辯人）
+  - entity_name: 第一控方證人（受害人）
+    reason: 港鐵職員，案發當日在落馬洲站執行人群控制職務時被上訴人推撞，背部受創
+  - entity_name: 孫小姐
+    reason: 辯方證人，上訴人的女性友人，其證供被裁判官認為與上訴人證供前後不一致、互相矛盾

zh_cases_hkcfi/2024_HKCFI_863/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 王欽賢
+
+defendant:
+  - 高景波
+
+case_reason: 呈請人王欽賢基於債務人高景波未能依照法定要求償債書在21天限期內支付港幣$223,867.50的訟費債項，向法庭申請對債務人作出破產令。該債項源自區域法院在DCCJ 1408/2023一案中於2023年9月14日命令債務人須向呈請人立即支付的訟費。
+
+judgment_summary: 高等法院原訟法庭於2024年3月18日聆訊破產呈請，債務人未有出席聆訊，僅提交信件要求延期但未以正式傳票或誓章提出申請。債務人曾於2023年10月17日提出將法定要求償債書作廢的申請，但該申請已於2023年12月20日被原訟法庭暫委法官徐韻華撤銷。法庭認為債務人在破產呈請中提出的反對理由極為空泛，未能提供實質證據支持其指控，且受限於"既判事項"及"已裁定爭論點不容反悔"原則，不能重新提出已被法庭不予接納的論點。法庭於2024年3月18日對債務人作出慣常破產令，並於2024年3月21日發出書面判決理由書。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 破產呈請
+  - 法定要求償債書
+  - 訟費債項追討
+  - 既判事項原則
+  - 已裁定爭論點不容反悔原則
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 破產呈請
+    result: 法庭對債務人高景波作出慣常破產令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 陳靜芬
+    reason: 高等法院原訟法庭法官，主審本案並作出破產令
+  - entity_name: 徐韻華
+    reason: 原訟法庭暫委法官，於2023年12月20日撤銷債務人的法定要求償債書作廢申請
+  - entity_name: 葉承昊
+    reason: 代表呈請人的大律師
+  - entity_name: 董吳謝林律師事務所
+    reason: 呈請人的代表律師事務所
+  - entity_name: 區域法院
+    reason: 在DCCJ 1408/2023一案中作出訟費命令的法院
+  - entity_name: 《破產條例》第6A(1)(a)條
+    reason: 法律依據，規定債務人未能在收到法定要求償債書後21天內支付債項即被視為無能力償付債項
+  - entity_name: DCCJ 1408/2023
+    reason: 區域法院訴訟案件，該案於2023年9月14日命令債務人向呈請人支付訟費港幣$223,867.50
+  - entity_name: SCTC 10381/2023
+    reason: 債務人在誓章中提及的相關案件
+  - entity_name: HCMP 1598/2023
+    reason: 債務人在誓章中提及的相關案件，已於2024年2月27日被撤銷
+  - entity_name: HCA 1677/2023
+    reason: 債務人在誓章中提及的相關案件
+  - entity_name: HCMP 972/2023
+    reason: 債務人在誓章中提及的相關案件
+  - entity_name: "[2024] HKCFI 92"
+    reason: 徐韻華法官撤銷法定要求償債書作廢申請的判決書
+  - entity_name: Ho Ying Pat Bobby v Overseas Way (China) Ltd [2011] 2 HKLRD 837
+    reason: 引用案例，確立破產呈請的法律原則
+  - entity_name: 有關陳鈺麟 HCB 8188/2013
+    reason: 引用案例，確立既判事項原則
+  - entity_name: Re Yip Kim Po (Debtor) [2022] 3 HKLRD 356
+    reason: 引用案例，確立已裁定爭論點不容反悔原則
+  - entity_name: Re Leung Cherng Jiunn (debtor) [2016] 1 HKLRD 850
+    reason: 引用案例，確立債務人舉證標準
+  - entity_name: 有關李國偉 HCB 3550/2008
+    reason: 引用案例，確立反申索或抵銷申索的法律原則
+  - entity_name: 吳木源v容明 HCSD 10/2001
+    reason: 引用案例，確立反申索或抵銷申索的法律原則

zh_cases_hkcrc/2023_HKCrC_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+plaintiff: []
+
+defendant: []
+
+case_reason: 就潘浩鈺、許文明、徐學培三名死者的死亡事件召開死因研訊，研究死亡個案的原因及與死亡個案有關的情況，確定死者的身份、如何、何時和在何處死亡。
+
+judgment_summary: 死因裁判官決定就三名死者(潘浩鈺、許文明、徐學培)的死亡事件召開死因研訊。這是第一次死因研訊前檢討紀要簡述。警方已於2022年9月接獲指示就此三宗死亡事件作調查，初步完成搜證，但涉及文件超過八千頁，需時整理及研究相關證供，預計會在2023年6月底向死因裁判官呈交完整死亡調查報告。死因裁判官計劃在收到報告後兩個月內(不遲於2023年10月)召開第二次死因研訊前檢討。考慮到三宗死亡事件在同一時間地點發生，死因裁判官初步認為適合一併展開涉及三名死者死亡的死因研訊，預計死因研訊將會在2023年年底或2024年初召開。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCRC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 死因研訊
+  - 死亡調查
+  - 確定死者身份及死因
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 死因研訊前檢討
+    result: 決定召開死因研訊，預計在2023年年底或2024年初進行
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 潘浩鈺
+    reason: 死者之一
+  - entity_name: 許文明
+    reason: 死者之一
+  - entity_name: 徐學培
+    reason: 死者之一
+  - entity_name: 署理主任裁判官高偉雄
+    reason: 負責此案的死因裁判官
+  - entity_name: 香港警方
+    reason: 負責調查三宗死亡事件並提交死亡調查報告
+  - entity_name: 死因裁判官條例
+    reason: 規管死因研訊程序的相關法例
+
+

zh_cases_hkcrc/2024_HKCrC_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+plaintiff: []
+
+defendant: []
+
+case_reason: 就三十九名死者(區曉霖、鄔寶甜、張月媚、許嘉偉、李瑞蘭、郭亮瑩、蘇貴媛、林日、司徒英、伍彩霞、郭文曦、張頌軒、徐蓮好、王惠娥、林基玉、比索志豪、梁頌彩、IE HWIE WENDY、黃麗珍、黎翠玉、徐志偉、陳敏盈、陳榮基、鄭燕蘭、劉靜嵐、梁家杰、李詠梅、甄子祈、古文昌、趙少琼、林蔚懿、胡毓芬、傅玉靈、林嘉敏、劉文麗、陳巧鑾、鄭先鑫、何黃佩蘭、徐凱盈)的死亡事件召開死因研訊。
+
+judgment_summary: 死因裁判官周慧珠於2024年3月28日發出第一次死因研訊前檢討紀要簡述，就三十九名死者的死亡事件作出安排。死因裁判官已於2024年3月1日收到初步的死亡調查報告，當中包括329位證人的供詞/報告。警方預計會在2024年6月初向死因裁判官呈交完整死亡調查報告。死因裁判官會在收到報告後兩個月內(無論如何不遲於2024年9月)召開第二次死因研訊前檢討。考慮到三十九宗死亡事件在同一時間及情況發生，死因裁判官認為適合一併展開涉及三十九名死者死亡的死因研訊。鑑於本個案發生至今已有相當的日子，死因裁判官指示參與本研訊的各方，以2024年之內召開研訊為目標。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCRC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 死因研訊
+  - 死亡原因調查
+  - 死亡情況確定
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 三十九名死者的死亡事件
+    result: 第一次死因研訊前檢討完成，待2024年6月收到完整死亡調查報告後召開第二次檢討，目標於2024年內召開正式研訊
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 周慧珠
+    reason: 死因裁判官，負責主持本案死因研訊
+  - entity_name: 香港警方
+    reason: 負責進行死亡調查，提供329位證人的供詞/報告，預計於2024年6月初呈交完整死亡調查報告
+  - entity_name: 死因裁判官條例
+    reason: 本案所依據的法律條例，第27條規定研訊的目的為研究死亡個案的原因及相關情況
+  - entity_name: 死者家屬
+    reason: 可於死因研訊中自己行事或聘用法律代表，如經濟情況不許可則可申請法律援助

zh_cases_hkct/2020_HKCT_4/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 競爭事務委員會
+
+defendant:
+  - 馮氏機電工程有限公司
+  - 義興鐵器土木油漆工程
+  - 張棉經營雅閣建築裝修工程公司
+  - 興盛建築公司
+  - 聯合裝飾工程有限公司
+  - 陶記營造廠有限公司
+  - 黃偉銓
+  - 黃富新
+  - 張潤錦
+
+case_reason: 競爭事務委員會針對九名答辯人提起的競爭事務審裁處執行訴訟，涉及競爭法相關事宜。案件涉及第三方鮑惠蓮的彌償權利問題。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案為競爭事務審裁處執行訴訟2019年第1號，由副主任法官歐陽桂如內庭聆訊。聆訊日期為2020年6月26日，判決（第2號）於2020年7月17日作出。判決書於2020年9月9日發出勘誤，更正第18頁第54段關於彌償權利的表述，將「鮑女士有權獲第一答辯人作出彌償」更正為「第一答辯人有權獲鮑女士作出彌償」。案件涉及擬成為第三方的鮑惠蓮與第一答辯人馮氏機電工程有限公司之間的彌償關係。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 競爭法執行訴訟
+  - 第三方彌償權利
+  - 競爭事務審裁處管轄權
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 競爭事務執行訴訟及第三方彌償權利爭議
+    result: 判決（第2號）於2020年7月17日作出，並於2020年9月9日發出勘誤更正彌償權利表述
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 歐陽桂如
+    reason: 競爭事務審裁處副主任法官，主審本案並作出判決
+  - entity_name: 張文杰
+    reason: 競爭事務審裁處書記，負責發出勘誤通知
+  - entity_name: 鮑惠蓮
+    reason: 擬成為第三方的一方，與第一答辯人存在彌償關係
+  - entity_name: 競爭事務委員會
+    reason: 申請人，提起本執行訴訟

zh_cases_hkct/2020_HKCT_8/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 競爭事務委員會
+
+defendant:
+  - 馮氏機電工程有限公司
+  - 義興鐵器土木油漆工程
+  - 張棉（經營雅閣建築裝修工程公司）
+  - 興盛建築公司
+  - 聯合裝飾工程有限公司
+  - 陶記營造廠有限公司
+  - 黃偉銓
+  - 黃富新
+  - 張潤錦
+
+case_reason: 競爭事務委員會針對九名答辯人提出的競爭事務審裁處執行訴訟，涉及樓層編配安排等競爭法相關事宜。
+
+judgment_summary: 競爭事務審裁處於2020年10月14日作出判決，並於2021年1月5日發出勘誤。案件涉及競爭事務委員會對九名答辯人（包括多家建築裝修工程公司及個人）提出的執行訴訟。判決書中提及4月19日的簡介會，以及答辯人（R1-R8）承認樓層編配安排等事實。勘誤更正了判決書中多處關於答辯人編號的錯誤，包括第4頁、第11頁、第13頁、第15頁及第19頁的相關內容。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 競爭法執行
+  - 樓層編配安排
+  - 反競爭行為
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 競爭法違規行為
+    result: 判決於2020年10月14日作出，答辯人R1-R8承認樓層編配安排相關事實
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 歐陽桂如
+    reason: 競爭事務審裁處副主任法官，主審本案並作出判決
+  - entity_name: 張文杰
+    reason: 競爭事務審裁處副主任法官歐陽桂如書記，負責發出勘誤

zh_cases_hkct/2020_HKCT_9/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 競爭事務委員會 (COMPETITION COMMISSION)
+
+defendant:
+  - 馮氏機電工程有限公司 (FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 義興鐵器土木油漆工程 (YEE HING METAL SHOP)
+  - 張棉經營雅閣建築裝修工程公司 (CHEUNG MIN trading as ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO)
+  - 興盛建築公司 (HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY)
+  - 聯合裝飾工程有限公司 (LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 陶記營造廠有限公司 (DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 黃偉銓 (WONG WAI CHUEN)
+  - 黃富新 (WONG FU SAN)
+  - 張潤錦 (CHEUNG YUN KAM)
+
+case_reason: 競爭事務委員會根據《競爭條例》第101至103條，申請針對第九答辯人張潤錦作出取消資格令，理由是其作為聯合裝飾工程有限公司董事期間，該公司違反競爭守則，而張潤錦的行為使其不適合關涉公司的管理。
+
+judgment_summary: 審裁處於2020年10月14日基於第九答辯人張潤錦承認指控，裁定其不適合關涉公司的管理。本聆訊中，競委會申請針對張潤錦作出為期兩年的取消資格令。審裁處認定張潤錦符合《條例》第103(2)(b)條的情況，即其作為董事雖無份造成違反競爭守則，但有合理理由懷疑公司行為構成違反競爭守則，卻沒有採取步驟防止該行為。審裁處考慮到張潤錦從一開始便承認責任、年事已高（74歲）、閱讀能力有限等求情因素，最終將取消資格令的時間從兩年縮減至一年零十個月，即至2022年8月30日為止。審裁處亦就訟費作出裁決，給予張潤錦20%訟費方面的寬免。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處 (Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 取消董事資格令
+  - 違反競爭守則
+  - 公司管理適切性
+  - 董事責任
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 根據《競爭條例》第101條申請取消資格令
+    result: 針對第九答辯人張潤錦發出取消資格令，有效期為一年零十個月（至2022年8月30日），並命令其支付競委會經評定訟費（給予20%寬免）
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 副主任法官歐陽桂如
+    reason: 主審法官，作出取消資格令的裁決
+  - entity_name: 聯合裝飾工程有限公司
+    reason: 第九答辯人張潤錦擔任董事的公司，違反競爭守則
+  - entity_name: 黃富新
+    reason: 代表聯合裝飾工程有限公司，於2017年3月8日接受競委會面見
+  - entity_name: 金杜律師事務所
+    reason: 代表申請人競爭事務委員會
+  - entity_name: 黃若鋒大律師
+    reason: 由金杜律師事務所轉聘，代表申請人
+  - entity_name: Competition Commission v W Hing Construction Co Ltd [2019] 3 HKLRD 46
+    reason: 相關案件（永興案），聯合裝飾工程有限公司為該案第十答辯人
+  - entity_name: 《競爭條例》（香港法例第619章）
+    reason: 本案適用的主要法例，特別是第101至103條關於取消資格令的規定
+  - entity_name: Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170
+    reason: 引用案例，確立取消資格令的目的是保護性而非懲罰性
+  - entity_name: Securities & Futures Commission v Fung Chiu & ors [2009] 2 HKC 19
+    reason: 引用案例，關於取消資格令的目的和原則
+  - entity_name: Aki John Pandelis Stamatis & anor v The Competition & Markets Authority [2019] EWHC 3318
+    reason: 英國案例，重申取消董事資格條文以保護性為主要目的
+  - entity_name: Securities & Futures Commission v Tong Shek Lun & ors [2020] HKCFI 435
+    reason: 引用案例，關於取消資格期的等級劃分
+  - entity_name: Re Carecraft Construction Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172
+    reason: 相關程序案例，第一答辯人曾反對審裁處使用該程序

zh_cases_hkct/2021_HKCT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 競爭委員會 (COMPETITION COMMISSION)
+
+defendant:
+  - 馮氏機電工程有限公司 (FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 義興鐵器土木油漆工程 (YEE HING METAL SHOP)
+  - 張棉 (CHEUNG MIN) 經營雅閣建築裝修工程公司 (ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO)
+  - 興盛建築公司 (HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY)
+  - 聯合裝飾工程有限公司 (LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 陶記營造廠有限公司 (DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED)
+  - 黃偉銓 (WONG WAI CHUEN)
+  - 黃富新 (WONG FU SAN)
+  - 張潤錦 (CHEUNG YUN KAM)
+
+case_reason: 競爭委員會指控九名答辯人違反《競爭條例》第6條下的「第一行為守則」，訂立及執行樓層編配安排及價格協調安排，涉及房委會裝修承辦商制度下的公共租賃屋邨裝修工程。R1-R6為裝修承辦商，違反第6條；R7-R8為「牽涉入」違反競爭守則的人，違反第91條。
+
+judgment_summary: 本判案書為關於懲罰的判決，需與2020年10月14日就責任問題而頒布的判詞一同閱讀。審裁處應用《永興案第3號》的「四步法」訂定罰款：第一步確定基礎金額（銷售價值、嚴重性百分比20%、持續期間乘數1）；第二步針對加重懲罰、求情和其他因素的調整（拒絕因廣泛性而加重，但因承辦商與分判商的關係給予最高50%扣減）；第三步應用法定上限；第四步為反映合作而作扣減（5%-10%）。反競爭行為發生在2017年6月至11月期間，涉及安泰邨一期工程，在1,508伙中裝修了429伙，佔28%市場份額。審裁處認為樓層編配安排及價格協調安排屬於嚴重反競爭行為，針對並影響了公共租賃屋邨的低收入租戶。最終判處R1-R8分別支付598,000元、469,000元、333,000元、388,000元、334,000元、341,000元、200,000元及600,000元罰款。審裁處撤銷禁制令的申請，並作出訟費令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處 (Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 違反《競爭條例》第6條第一行為守則
+  - 樓層編配安排（瓜分市場）
+  - 價格協調安排（合謀定價）
+  - 房委會裝修承辦商制度
+  - 公共租賃屋邨裝修工程
+  - 反競爭行為的罰款計算
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: R1-R6違反《競爭條例》第6條，訂立及執行樓層編配安排及價格協調安排
+    result: R1罰款598,000港元；R2罰款469,000港元；R3罰款333,000港元；R4罰款388,000港元；R5罰款334,000港元；R6罰款341,000港元
+  - charge: R7-R8違反《競爭條例》第91條，作為「牽涉入」違反競爭守則的人參與反競爭行為
+    result: R7罰款200,000港元；R8罰款600,000港元
+  - charge: 競爭委員會申請禁制令
+    result: 撤銷禁制令的申請
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 副主任法官歐陽桂如
+    reason: 主審法官，頒布關於懲罰的判案書
+  - entity_name: 香港房屋委員會
+    reason: 裝修承辦商制度的管理機構，曾警告承辦商不要「分餅仔」
+  - entity_name: 安泰邨一期
+    reason: 涉案的公共租賃屋邨工程項目，共1,508伙，答辯人裝修了429伙
+  - entity_name: 鮑女士
+    reason: R1的代表人，實際執行反競爭行為，但不是答辯人
+  - entity_name: Competition Commission v W Hing Construction Co Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 1229（永興案第3號）
+    reason: 先例案件，確立了計算罰款的「四步法」
+  - entity_name: 金杜律師事務所
+    reason: 代表申請人競爭委員會
+  - entity_name: 鄧富津、蕭婉圓律師行
+    reason: 代表第一答辯人R1
+  - entity_name: 呂羅律師事務所
+    reason: 代表第四、第六及第七答辯人R4、R6、R7
+  - entity_name: 黃若鋒大律師
+    reason: 代表申請人競爭委員會
+  - entity_name: 魏焯然大律師、陳樨樨大律師
+    reason: 代表第一答辯人R1
+  - entity_name: 張志雄大律師
+    reason: 代表第四、第六及第七答辯人R4、R6、R7
+  - entity_name: 梁永豪
+    reason: 競爭委員會證人，提供誓章證明反競爭行為的廣泛性

zh_cases_hkdc/2013_HKDC_1527/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 梁家威
+
+case_reason: 被告人與另兩人串謀，意圖使蘇志偉及溫榮基身體受嚴重傷害而非法及惡意傷害二人。被告人受舊同事指使，以20,000元報酬持牛肉刀到遊戲機鋪傷人，但因膽怯未有下手，於遊戲機中心外被截停並被警察拘捕。
+
+judgment_summary: 被告人梁家威承認兩項串謀有意圖而傷人罪。案情顯示被告於2013年1月21日至2月1日期間，與另兩人（阿勝及阿庭）串謀以牛肉刀傷害蘇志偉及溫榮基。被告因沉迷賭博負債30,000元，在經濟壓力下接受20,000元報酬答應傷人。被告曾兩次持刀到遊戲機中心尋找目標人物，但因膽怯未有下手。被告於2013年2月1日在大埔大元邨遊戲機鋪內因形跡可疑被截停，牛肉刀從身上跌出後被制服拘捕。被告於警誡下承認犯案並與警方合作，於區域法院690/2013案中充當控方證人指證阿勝及阿庭（雖然該案最終裁定二人無罪）。法庭認為經審訊後適當量刑基準應為30個月監禁，因被告承認控罪及無犯罪前科給予三分之一刑罰寬減至20個月，再因協助控方作證進一步減至18個月。控罪一及控罪二的刑罰同期執行。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 串謀有意圖而傷人
+  - 持攻擊性武器（牛肉刀）
+  - 刑事串謀
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 串謀有意圖而傷人（控罪一）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁18個月
+  - charge: 串謀有意圖而傷人（控罪二）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁18個月（與控罪一同期執行）
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 陳仲衡
+    reason: 區域法院法官，主審本案並作出判刑
+  - entity_name: Helen CHAN
+    reason: 外聘律師，代表香港特別行政區
+  - entity_name: CHONG Chun Sang Matthew
+    reason: 由法律援助署委派的譚德興程國豪劉麗卿律師行延聘，代表被告人
+  - entity_name: 蘇志偉
+    reason: 控罪一的目標傷害人物
+  - entity_name: 溫榮基
+    reason: 控罪二的目標傷害人物
+  - entity_name: 阿勝
+    reason: 被告的舊同事，與阿庭一同招攬被告以金錢酬勞持刀傷人
+  - entity_name: 阿庭
+    reason: 與阿勝一同指使被告持牛肉刀傷人，答應給予20,000元報酬

zh_cases_hkdc/2013_HKDC_940/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 鍾海亮
+
+case_reason: 被告人被控兩項串謀詐騙罪，涉及透過假結婚安排內地居民獲取香港居留許可證，欺騙婚姻登記官及入境處人員。控罪一涉及被告人與蔡亞燕的假結婚；控罪二涉及被告人協助陳秋嬋安排二十宗假結婚。
+
+judgment_summary: 區域法院審理本案，被告人鍾海亮承認兩項串謀詐騙罪。控罪一：被告於2004年12月至2005年1月期間與蔡亞燕假結婚，以協助對方獲取香港居留許可證，被告因急需金錢而從報章廣告參與假結婚，獲得港幣6,000元報酬。控罪二：被告於2005年3月至2011年6月期間協助陳秋嬋處理二十宗假結婚，擔任跑腿及聯絡人，每天賺取200至300元報酬，工作數月後因認為涉及欺騙而停止。被告無犯罪前科，被捕後全面合作，並於陳秋嬋的審訊中出庭作證。法庭考慮被告的認罪、協助控方作證、延誤時間及良好品格，判處控罪一監禁9個月，控罪二監禁16個月，部分刑期分期執行，總刑期為監禁20個月。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 串謀詐騙
+  - 假結婚
+  - 入境欺詐
+  - 婚姻登記欺詐
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 控罪一 - 串謀詐騙（與蔡亞燕假結婚）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁9個月
+  - charge: 控罪二 - 串謀詐騙（協助陳秋嬋安排二十宗假結婚）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁16個月，部分刑期與控罪一分期執行，總刑期監禁20個月
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 陳仲衡
+    reason: 區域法院法官，主審本案並作出判決
+  - entity_name: Mr Sharman LAM
+    reason: 律政司高級檢控官，代表香港特別行政區
+  - entity_name: Ms Pauline LAM
+    reason: 練松柏律師行律師，代表被告人
+  - entity_name: 蔡亞燕
+    reason: 控罪一中與被告人假結婚的內地女子
+  - entity_name: 陳秋嬋Tracy
+    reason: 控罪二中假結婚集團的主謀，經審訊後被判監禁4年
+  - entity_name: 司徒逸華
+    reason: 控罪二中參與假結婚的二十名香港居民之一
+  - entity_name: Ken
+    reason: 協助陳秋嬋處理假結婚事宜的男子
+  - entity_name: David
+    reason: 參與假結婚活動的男子
+  - entity_name: 香港婚姻登記處
+    reason: 被欺騙的政府機構，處理假結婚登記
+  - entity_name: 入境處
+    reason: 被欺騙的政府機構，向假結婚的內地配偶批給居留許可證
+  - entity_name: 建造業訓練局
+    reason: 被告人接受職業訓練並取得建造業工人註冊資格的機構
+  - entity_name: 香港專業教育學院
+    reason: 被告人於2010年修讀電器技工課程並獲頒電工技能證書的教育機構
+  - entity_name: 紅十字會
+    reason: 被告人定期參與輸血的慈善機構

zh_cases_hkdc/2016_HKDC_205/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 伍艷娟
+
+defendant:
+  - 興華促進有限公司
+
+case_reason: 僱員補償申請案，申請人聲稱於1997年約1月受僱答辯人為船務文員時，因使用電腦而引致頸椎退化及腰椎病，要求僱員補償。本案與之前的案件DCEC 2023/2014有關，該案因對象錯誤和超出訴訟時限被剔除，上訴亦被駁回。
+
+judgment_summary: 區域法院審理本僱員補償申請案（DCEC 1799/2015），答辯人興華促進有限公司根據《區域法院規則》第18號命令第19條規則申請剔除申請書。法院認為申請人在指稱意外18年後才提出訴訟，嚴重超出《僱員補償條例》第14條所訂明的24個月訴訟時限，且未能提供合理辯解。法院亦認為本案違反「既判案件」原則，因為有關延遲訴訟的事實已在之前的案件（DCEC 2023/2014）中裁決。法院最終批准答辯人的剔除申請，命令剔除申請書，並命令申請人支付答辯人訟費$15,450。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 僱員補償申請
+  - 訴訟時限
+  - 既判案件原則
+  - 濫用法庭程序
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 僱員補償申請（因工作使用電腦引致頸椎退化及腰椎病）
+    result: 申請被剔除，申請人須支付答辯人訟費$15,450
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 羅雪梅
+    reason: 區域法院法官，主審本案並作出剔除申請書的判決
+  - entity_name: 陳世偉
+    reason: 興華促進有限公司的股東及董事，之前案件（DCEC 2023/2014）的答辯人
+  - entity_name: 鍾穎詩大律師
+    reason: 代表答辯人興華促進有限公司的大律師
+  - entity_name: 李智聰律師事務所
+    reason: 代表答辯人的律師事務所
+  - entity_name: 勞工處
+    reason: 曾於2015年9月4日發信給興華促進有限公司，申請人以此作為證據
+  - entity_name: 《僱員補償條例》第14條
+    reason: 訂明僱員補償申請的24個月訴訟時限
+  - entity_name: 《區域法院規則》第336H章第18號命令第19條規則
+    reason: 答辯人據此申請剔除申請書的法律依據
+  - entity_name: 曾來發對新福港 [2011] 4 HKLRD 336
+    reason: 法院考慮延遲訴訟合理辯解時引用的案例
+  - entity_name: King's City Holdings Ltd v De Monsa Investments Ltd [2013] 4 HKC 450
+    reason: 法院討論「既判案件」廣義原則時引用的案例
+  - entity_name: Brisbane City Council and Myer Shopping Centres Pty Ltd v Attorney-General for Queensland [1979] AC 411
+    reason: 法院討論濫用法律程序時引用的案例
+  - entity_name: DCEC 2023/2014（伍艷娟對陳世偉）
+    reason: 與本案有關的之前案件，於2015年1月23日被剔除，上訴於2015年8月27日被駁回
+  - entity_name: CACV 45/2015（伍艷娟對陳世偉）
+    reason: 申請人針對DCEC 2023/2014剔除命令的上訴案，上訴庭於2015年8月27日駁回上訴
+  - entity_name: 朱法官
+    reason: 上訴法庭法官，在CACV 45/2015中作出駁回上訴的裁決

zh_cases_hkdc/2016_HKDC_459/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - PRIMECREDIT LIMITED
+
+defendant:
+  - WONG MEI YAN PATRICIA
+
+case_reason: 原告人就DCCJ 3283/2014的判決申請收樓及售樓令，因被告人作為擔保人未有履行還款責任。
+
+judgment_summary: 這是被告人黃薇欣就聆案官杜潔玲於2015年12月29日作出的收樓及售樓令而提出的上訴。該命令是因被告人未有就DCCJ 3283/2014的判決還款，法庭批予被告人物業的押記令而作出。被告人的上訴申請已逾時三個多月。法庭考慮延誤時間的長度、延誤的原因及上訴的勝算後，認為被告人沒有實質理據支持成功覆核聆案官的命令。被告人雖聲稱從未簽過擔保書及答辯人誇大欠款額，但從未就DCCJ 3283/2014案件提出上訴。法庭最終不延展被告人的上訴時限，駁回上訴申請，並命令被告人支付原告人訟費。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 收樓令
+  - 售樓令
+  - 押記令
+  - 擔保人責任
+  - 判決債項
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 就聆案官於2015年12月29日作出的收樓及售樓令提出上訴
+    result: 上訴被駁回，法庭不延展上訴時限，被告人須支付原告人訟費
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 萬可宜
+    reason: 區域法院暫委法官，主審本案並作出判決
+  - entity_name: 杜潔玲
+    reason: 聆案官，於2015年12月29日作出收樓及售樓令
+  - entity_name: 劉林陳律師行
+    reason: 代表原告人的律師行
+  - entity_name: Law Wing Chi
+    reason: 代表原告人的律師

zh_cases_hkdc/2022_HKDC_1263/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 李少培
+
+case_reason: 被告人被控管理煙窟、販運危險藥物及管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物的器具。警方於2021年7月22日在旺角新填地街427A的單位（稱為"月光酒店"）進行搜查，發現該單位有6個房間，共有14名男女，並檢獲冰毒、海洛英、咪達唑侖等危險藥物及吸毒工具。被告承認負責為顧客開門並向客人出售毒品，每天工作12小時，賺取600港元工資。
+
+judgment_summary: 被告人於認罪及同意相關案情下，被裁定3項控罪罪名成立。法庭考慮案情包括單位面積約800平方英尺，有6個房間可供14人吸食毒品，檢獲的毒品包括2.34克甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽、3.62克海洛英鹽酸鹽及0.12克咪達唑侖，街頭價值約9,611港元。被告有28項刑事定罪紀錄，其中17項與毒品相關。法庭參考上訴庭案例，就管理煙窟罪判處12個月監禁，販運危險藥物罪判處34個月監禁，管有吸毒器具罪判處4個月監禁，3項控罪刑期同期執行，總刑期為34個月監禁。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKDC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 管理煙窟
+  - 販運危險藥物
+  - 管有吸毒器具
+  - 甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽（冰毒）
+  - 海洛英鹽酸鹽（白粉）
+  - 咪達唑侖
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 管理煙窟（Managing a divan）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁12個月
+  - charge: 販運危險藥物（Trafficking in dangerous drugs）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁34個月
+  - charge: 管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物的器具（Possession of apparatuses fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug）
+    result: 罪名成立，判處監禁4個月
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 李慶年
+    reason: 區域法院法官，主審本案並作出判決
+  - entity_name: 謝家樹
+    reason: 外聘大律師，代表香港特別行政區
+  - entity_name: 傅昶生
+    reason: 大律師，由法律援助署委派的王婉芝律師行延聘，代表被告人
+  - entity_name: 羅玉珍
+    reason: 在該單位內被發現的女子
+  - entity_name: 警員18615（PW1）
+    reason: 執行搜查令的警員，逮捕被告並進行調查
+  - entity_name: 警長6685（PW8）
+    reason: 執行搜查令的警長
+  - entity_name: 警員15565（PW2）
+    reason: 參與搜查行動的警員
+  - entity_name: 高級警員31914
+    reason: 對檢獲的證物和單位拍攝87張照片
+  - entity_name: 危險藥物條例
+    reason: 規管危險藥物的法例，附表一第一部分管制海洛英、甲基苯丙胺及咪達唑侖
+  - entity_name: Lam Lai Chu Patsy CACC56/2003
+    reason: 上訴庭案例，用於參考管理煙窟罪的量刑
+  - entity_name: HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817
+    reason: 案例，用於參考以綜合方法處理同一案件不同毒品的量刑
+  - entity_name: Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146
+    reason: 案例，用於參考涉及多於一種毒品的量刑
+  - entity_name: HKSAR v Cheung Yiu Fai Alex CACC 173/2005
+    reason: 上訴庭案例，說明販運危險藥物和管理煙窟的判刑可以完全分期執行的原則

zh_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 鄭國華
+  - 黎亞來
+  - 廖發開
+  - 何清海
+  - 徐志中
+
+defendant:
+  - 利興清潔服務有限公司
+
+case_reason: 五位申索人向被告公司追討遣散費及終止僱傭金。
+
+judgment_summary: 勞資審裁處於2012年7月13日作出裁決，五位申索人的遣散費申索得直，被告公司須即時支付遣散費，金額分別為：第三申索人港幣13,412.05元、第四申索人港幣3,003.42元、第七申索人港幣21,848元、第九申索人港幣13,827.86元、第十一申索人港幣13,826.82元。五位申索人第二項有關終止僱傭金的追討被撤銷。被告公司須即時支付訟費予五位申索人。被告公司不服裁決提出覆核申請，於2012年8月6日進行覆核聆訊。審裁官認為被告公司的理據早已在審訊時提出並不獲接納，並無任何新增理據支持覆核申請，因此不批准覆核申請。審裁官亦不批准被告公司暫緩發放裁決款項港幣67,996.81元的申請，考慮到五名申索人已屆高齡及上訴程序對他們的影響。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區
+
+case_object:
+  - 遣散費
+  - 終止僱傭金
+  - 僱傭權益
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 遣散費申索
+    result: 申索得直，被告公司須支付五位申索人遣散費合共港幣65,918.15元
+  - charge: 終止僱傭金申索
+    result: 申索被撤銷
+  - charge: 覆核申請
+    result: 不予批准
+  - charge: 暫緩發放裁決款項申請
+    result: 不予批准
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 林美施
+    reason: 主審審裁官，作出原審裁決及覆核裁決
+  - entity_name: 勞資審裁處條例第25章第39(3)條
+    reason: 判決款額利息計算的法律依據

zh_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 鄭國華
+  - 黎亞來
+  - 廖發開
+  - 何清海
+  - 徐志中
+
+defendant:
+  - 利興清潔服務有限公司
+
+case_reason: 五名申索人向被告公司追討遣散費及交替申索終止僱傭金。被告公司與食物環境衛生署簽訂的灣仔街道潔淨服務合約於2011年12月31日屆滿，被告公司在新一輪投標中落選。申索人認為僱傭合約隨服務合約終止而結束，要求支付遣散費。
+
+judgment_summary: 審裁處裁定五名申索人與被告公司簽訂的政府標準僱傭合約隱含了食環署合約的屆滿日便是僱傭合約的終結日這條款，因此僱傭合約在2011年12月31日告終。被告公司在合約屆滿後未能與申索人續約或簽訂新合約，且其調派安排違反了僱傭合約的基本條款。審裁處認定申索人因裁員而遭解僱，被告公司須支付遣散費。判令被告公司即時支付五名申索人遣散費，總額為港幣66,918.15元，並支付訟費。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 遣散費
+  - 終止僱傭金
+  - 僱傭合約
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 追討遣散費及交替申索終止僱傭金
+    result: 遣散費申索得直，被告公司須即時支付第三申索人港幣13,412.05元、第四申索人港幣3,003.42元、第七申索人港幣21,848元、第九申索人港幣13,827.86元、第十一申索人港幣13,826.82元，並支付訟費
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 食物環境衛生署
+    reason: 與被告公司簽訂灣仔街道潔淨服務合約的政府部門
+  - entity_name: 清潔工人職工會
+    reason: 代表清潔工人參與勞工處會議
+  - entity_name: 勞工處
+    reason: 組織被告公司與員工之間的協調會議

zh_cases_hkldt/2002_HKLDT_156/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - Chan Yip Keung（陳業強）
+  - Leung Shiu Kuen（梁兆權）
+
+defendant:
+  - The Incorporated Owners of Belvedere Garden Phase II（麗城花園第二期業主立案法團）
+  - Chiang Shu To（蔣書濤）
+
+case_reason: 兩名申請人針對第二答辯人提出申請，涉及建築物管理事宜。申請人要求第二答辯人召開業主大會以選舉新的管理委員會，但第二答辯人辭職後未作回應。申請人提出的申請被法庭認為缺乏法律和事實基礎。
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭裁定申請人針對第二答辯人的申請並無法律和事實基礎，未披露合理的訴因，因此將所有針對第二答辯人的申請剔除。法庭審理訟費爭議時，第二答辯人要求申請人按彌償基準支付訟費，但法庭認為本案不具備相關案例所述的因素，拒絕以彌償基準計算訟費。最終判令兩名申請人須支付第二答辯人剔除申請聆訊及原訴申請的訟費，但第二答辯人須支付申請人部分聆訊的訟費。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 建築物管理
+  - 業主大會
+  - 管理委員會選舉
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 要求召開業主大會選舉新管理委員會
+    result: 申請被剔除，兩名申請人須支付第二答辯人部分訟費，第二答辯人須支付申請人部分訟費
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 麗城花園第二期
+    reason: 涉案建築物
+  - entity_name: 第三管理委員會
+    reason: 第二答辯人曾擔任主席的管理委員會

zh_cases_hkldt/2004_HKLDT_144/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - The Incorporated Owners of Tai Tat Building（大達大廈業主立案法團）
+
+defendant:
+  - Leung Wai Sum（梁偉森）
+
+case_reason: 申請人要求答辯人就其擁有的大達大廈5字樓A室及C室繳交電力維修費和電梯維修費。法團於2002年1月18日舉行全體業主大會，通過電力維修及電梯內籠更換工程的決議，答辯人未繳交應分攤的維修費用。
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭根據大廈公契第4(f)(h)及(i)條計算答辯人應繳付的維修費用。電力維修費用為211,000元，電梯內籠更換工程為48,000元。答辯人須為5樓A室及C室各繳付電力維修費1,133.8元和電梯維修費4,984.25元，總計12,236元。法庭駁回答辯人關於管理費不公平的抗辯，裁定答辯人的答辯無效。判令答辯人於14天內向申請人繳交12,236元的維修費，並支付申請人本案及小額錢債審裁處的訟費。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 電力維修費
+  - 電梯維修費
+  - 建築物管理費用
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 追討電力維修費和電梯維修費共12,236元
+    result: 答辯人須於14天內向申請人繳交12,236元的維修費，並支付申請人本案及小額錢債審裁處的訟費（不包括大律師費用）
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 大達大廈
+    reason: 涉案建築物，位於九龍佐敦道庇利金街26號至34號
+  - entity_name: 小額錢債審裁處
+    reason: 申請人最初在此提出訴訟，後移交至土地審裁處

zh_cases_hkldt/2011_HKLdT_28/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 陳國強
+
+defendant:
+  - 吳志樂
+
+case_reason: 本案涉及土地相關爭議，具體案情未在判案書中詳細披露。判案書僅為勘誤通知，對2011年5月17日頒下的判案書作出更正。
+
+judgment_summary: 本文件為勘誤通知，對2011年5月17日頒下的判案書作出技術性更正。更正內容包括：第8頁第3行和第5行中的"蔡小姐"應更正為"葉小姐"。本勘誤不涉及實質性判決內容的修改，僅為人名的技術性更正。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 土地爭議
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 具體控訴內容未在勘誤通知中披露
+    result: 本文件僅為勘誤通知，實質判決結果未在此文件中說明
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 葉小姐
+    reason: 案件中提及的相關人士，原判案書中誤寫為蔡小姐

zh_cases_hkldt/2012_HKLdT_30/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 彭國友
+
+defendant:
+  - 梁潤根
+  - 潘保國
+  - 康盛花園業主立案法團
+
+case_reason: 申請人於2005年獲選為康盛花園業主立案法團管理委員會主席。2008年，第一答辯人向土地註冊處存檔通知書，指申請人連續三次缺席管委會會議而被停任委員及主席職銜，並選舉第二答辯人為新主席。申請人不服，要求土地審裁處宣布其仍為主席，並要求更正土地註冊處紀錄及宣布相關會議和選舉無效。
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭裁定申請人並未連續三次缺席管委會會議，因此未喪失委員及主席職能。然而，法庭認為申請人延遲三年才提出申請，期間已選出第二屆和第三屆管理委員會，屋苑管理正常運作。法庭引用相關案例，認為頒布命令沒有實際作用，且會對屋苑管理架構帶來混亂。法庭裁定第二答辯人召開的管委會會議僅屬程序失誤，不構成會議無效。2009年業主周年大會的通知期符合法例要求，大會及選舉有效。法庭駁回申請人所有申請，不作訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 管理委員會主席職位
+  - 業主大會
+  - 管理委員會選舉
+  - 土地註冊處紀錄
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 要求宣布申請人為第一屆主席，第二答辯人不是主席，更正土地註冊處紀錄，宣布相關會議和選舉無效
+    result: 駁回申請人所有申請，不作訟費命令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 康盛花園
+    reason: 涉案屋苑
+  - entity_name: 土地註冊處
+    reason: 存檔管理委員會變更紀錄的政府部門
+  - entity_name: 鍾沛林律師行
+    reason: 為第三答辯人提供法律意見及代表答辯人應訊
+  - entity_name: 黃女士
+    reason: 曾向土地審裁處提出相關申請的業主
+  - entity_name: 姚勳智暫委法官
+    reason: 審理LDBM111/2008案件的法官
+  - entity_name: 黃一鳴法官
+    reason: 審理LDBM112/2008案件的法官

zh_cases_hkldt/2016_HKLdT_38/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 文貴益
+
+defendant:
+  - 劉炳興
+
+case_reason: 申請人聲稱他是涉案處所的出租人，答辯人是租客，雙方有一定期租賃，而由於答辯人欠租，他以此理由申請收樓。雙方主要爭議是否有租務關係。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及土地租賃糾紛。申請人文貴益聲稱答辯人劉炳興欠租，申請收樓。答辯人則聲稱涉案處所是其物業，每年交付的款項只是「保護費」而非租金。審裁處裁定雙方有一按年的定期租賃，答辯人確實欠租。審裁處認為答辯人過往多年的行為已構成按年定期租賃，不相信答辯人有關「保護費」的陳詞。審裁處判申請人勝訴，但根據《高等法院條例》第21F條給予答辯人濟助，如答辯人在濟助期屆滿日或之前能支付所有欠租和訟費，可獲沒收租賃權的寬免。審裁處裁定答辯人須交還處所空置管有權、支付欠租及訟費3,300元。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 涉案處所（座落於政府土地上的寮屋）
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申請人以答辯人欠租為由申請收樓
+    result: 申請人勝訴，答辯人須交還處所空置管有權、支付由2014年2月3日起計算的欠租/中間收益（每年1,400元）及訟費3,300元。如答辯人在2016年5月10日或之前繳存所有欠租及訟費，可獲沒收租賃權的寬免
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 文立基
+    reason: 申請人代表及證人，申請人兒子
+  - entity_name: 劉天才
+    reason: 答辯人兒子，作為證人
+  - entity_name: 劉福祥
+    reason: 答辯人兒子，作為證人
+  - entity_name: 吳紹林
+    reason: 審裁處成員，主審法官

zh_cases_hkmagc/2019_HKMagC_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 許智峯
+
+case_reason: 被告許智峯是立法會議員，於2018年4月24日在立法會大樓內，從一名政府人員手中搶去手機，並在未經授權下閱讀手機內資料及上載檔案至自己的電郵帳戶。控方指控被告干犯普通襲擊、阻礙公職人員執行公務及不誠實地獲益而取用電腦三項罪行。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及立法會議員許智峯在立法會大樓內搶奪政府人員手機的刑事案件。2018年4月24日，被告在立法會大樓電梯大堂遇見保安局高級行政主任梁諾施，該人員當時正執行監察立法會議員行蹤的工作。被告強行搶去其手機，進入洗手間閱讀手機資料，並將5個PDF檔案上載至自己的Gmail帳戶後刪除記錄。裁判官裁定被告三項控罪全部罪名成立：普通襲擊罪、阻礙公職人員依法執行公務罪及目的在於使其本人不誠實地獲益而取用電腦罪。裁判官認為被告雖主觀認為政府違反私隱法例，但其行為並無合法理據，屬不誠實行為，且阻礙了公職人員執行公務。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區東區裁判法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區東區裁判法院
+
+case_object:
+  - Samsung手提電話（手機）
+  - 載有68位立法會議員資料的紙張（A4紙）
+  - 谷歌試算表應用程式
+  - 5個PDF檔案
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 普通襲擊
+    result: 罪名成立
+  - charge: 阻礙公職人員依法執行公務
+    result: 罪名成立
+  - charge: 目的在於使其本人或他人不誠實地獲益而取用電腦
+    result: 罪名成立
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 梁諾施
+    reason: 控方第一證人，保安局高級行政主任，被搶手機的受害人
+  - entity_name: 黎惠珊
+    reason: 運輸及房屋局助理秘書長，監察小組組長
+  - entity_name: 鄭朗峰
+    reason: 運輸及房屋局助理秘書長，監察小組統籌員
+  - entity_name: 梁榮燊
+    reason: 運輸及房屋局二級系統分析／程序編製主任，監察小組技術支援
+  - entity_name: 符傳富
+    reason: 運輸及房屋政治助理，從被告手中取回手機
+  - entity_name: 鄭念慈
+    reason: 裁判官，主審法官

zh_cases_hkmagc/2019_HKMagC_4/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 吳文遠
+  - 葉志衍
+  - 陳文威
+  - 盧德昌
+  - 周嘉發
+  - 林淳軒
+  - 鄭沛倫
+  - 林朗彥
+
+case_reason: 本案涉及2016年11月6日反釋法遊行期間，在干諾道西西行方向行人路上的指定公眾活動區發生的三個不同時段的事件。被告人被控煽惑他人參與非法集結、參與非法集結、阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員及煽惑他人在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序的行為等罪行。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及2016年11月6日反對全國人民代表大會就基本法釋法的遊行期間發生的三起事件。第一被告吳文遠兩次煽惑他人爬過警方設置的鐵馬防線，被裁定兩項煽惑他人參與非法集結罪名成立，各判監14天，緩刑12個月，同期執行。第二至第四被告因參與非法集結罪名成立，分別被判100小時、60小時及100小時社會服務令。第二及第六被告因阻撓警務人員執行職務罪名成立，各被判100小時社會服務令。第七被告承認煽惑他人在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序的行為，被判80小時社會服務令。第八及第九被告因參與非法集結罪名成立，分別被判監14天，緩刑12個月。裁判官考慮了各被告的背景、角色及案情嚴重性作出判刑。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區西九龍裁判法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區西九龍裁判法院
+
+case_object:
+  - 警方設置的鐵馬防線
+  - 干諾道西西行方向行人路上的指定公眾活動區
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 第一被告吳文遠 - 第一項控罪（煽惑他人參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判監14天，緩刑12個月
+  - charge: 第一被告吳文遠 - 第四項控罪（煽惑他人參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判監14天，緩刑12個月，與第一項控罪同期執行
+  - charge: 第二被告葉志衍 - 第三項控罪（參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判100小時社會服務令
+  - charge: 第二被告葉志衍 - 第六項控罪（阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員）
+    result: 罪名成立，判100小時社會服務令，與第三項控罪同期執行
+  - charge: 第三被告陳文威 - 第三項控罪（參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判60小時社會服務令
+  - charge: 第四被告盧德昌 - 第三項控罪（參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判100小時社會服務令
+  - charge: 第六被告周嘉發 - 第六項控罪（阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員）
+    result: 罪名成立，判100小時社會服務令
+  - charge: 第七被告林淳軒 - 第九項控罪（煽惑他人在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序的行為）
+    result: 認罪，判80小時社會服務令
+  - charge: 第八被告鄭沛倫 - 第十項控罪（參與非法集結）
+    result: 罪名成立，判監14天，緩刑12個月
+  - charge: 第九被告林朗彥 - 第十項控罪（參與非法集結）
+    result: 認罪，判監14天，緩刑12個月
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 黃雅茵
+    reason: 裁判官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 民間人權陣線
+    reason: 遊行主辦單位
+  - entity_name: 中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辦公室（中聯辦）
+    reason: 遊行目的地
+  - entity_name: 陸嘉永督察
+    reason: 警方人員，曾警告第一被告

zh_cases_hkmagc/2020_HKMagC_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 郭德英
+
+defendant:
+  - 梁家榮
+
+case_reason: 申請人郭德英女士申請發出5張私人傳票，檢控香港電台廣播處處長梁家榮先生，指控其身為公職人員，在執行公職過程中故意及蓄意作出失當行為，包括製作及播放偏頗失實的節目、違反電視通用業務守則及香港電台約章等。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及申請人郭德英申請發出私人傳票檢控香港電台廣播處處長梁家榮的案件。郭女士指控梁先生在不同場合製作及播放多個節目，包括《左右紅藍綠》評警方圍攻大學校園事件、《頭條新聞》的「驚方信息」環節、報導佔中主犯陳健民出獄過程，以及訪問世界衛生組織官員關於台灣加入問題等，違反《電視通用業務守則》及《香港電台約章》，構成公職人員行為失當罪。裁判官裁定申請人的聆訊可以於內庭處理，無須公開。裁判官認為郭女士不能提供一個表證成立的案情，特別是未有表面證據顯示梁先生故意及蓄意疏忽職守或作出失當行為，因此拒絕其申請發出私人傳票。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區沙田裁判法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區沙田裁判法院
+
+case_object:
+  - 香港電台節目《左右紅藍綠》
+  - 香港電台節目《頭條新聞》
+  - 香港電台第一台新聞報導
+  - 訪問世界衛生組織官員的節目
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申請發出5張私人傳票檢控梁家榮干犯公職人員行為失當罪
+    result: 申請被拒絕，裁判官認為申請人不能提供表證成立的案情
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 鄧少雄
+    reason: 署理主任裁判官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 容海恩
+    reason: 代表申請人的大律師
+  - entity_name: 香港電台
+    reason: 被指控製作及播放偏頗節目的機構
+  - entity_name: 陳健民
+    reason: 佔領中環行動主犯之一，其出獄過程被香港電台報導

zh_cases_hkmagc/2023_HKMagC_8/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 王浩鏘
+
+case_reason: 被告人王浩鏘於2022年8月28日至2023年1月5日期間，在社交平台LIHKG和Facebook發布、提供及持續提供具煽動意圖的陳述、相片及圖片，意圖引起憎恨或藐視中央及香港特別行政區政府、激起對其離叛、煽惑他人使用暴力及慫使他人不守法或不服從合法命令等。
+
+judgment_summary: 本案涉及被告人王浩鏘在社交平台發布具煽動意圖訊息的刑事案件。被告人於2022年8月28日至2023年1月5日期間，在LIHKG發布189則及在Facebook發布7則具煽動性的訊息。內容包括引起憎恨或藐視中央及中國共產黨、香港特區政府、警務處及政府官員，激起香港居民不循合法途徑促致改變依法制定的事項（包括宣揚香港獨立、破壞防疫政策），引起對香港司法的憎恨，以及煽惑他人使用暴力和不守法等。被告人承認控罪。裁判官認為案件屬嚴重，雖非最嚴重類別，但有計劃性，發布的訊息煽動性不低，以容易被挑起情緒的人為對象，有潛伏危機。裁判官以7個半月為量刑起點，認罪後獲三分之一折扣，判處被告人入獄5個月。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區西九龍裁判法院
+
+case_location: 香港特別行政區西九龍裁判法院
+
+case_object:
+  - LIHKG社交平台帳戶
+  - Facebook社交平台帳戶
+  - 189則LIHKG煽動性訊息
+  - 7則Facebook煽動性訊息
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 作出一項或多項具煽動意圖的作為罪行
+    result: 認罪，判處入獄5個月
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 羅德泉
+    reason: 主任裁判官，主審法官
+  - entity_name: 蘇信恩
+    reason: 代表被告人的大律師
+  - entity_name: 李庭偉
+    reason: 律政司高級檢控官，代表控方
+  - entity_name: 梁健輝
+    reason: 被告人在訊息中提及的人物，於2021年7月1日在銅鑼灣用刀刺傷警務人員後自殺

zh_cases_hkmagc/2025_HKMagC_3/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 香港特別行政區
+
+defendant:
+  - 李樹銘
+
+case_reason: 被告人在公眾地方以麥克筆塗鴉，內容涉及詆毀國家領導人、咒罵中共政權、侮辱國歌，並鼓吹台灣獨立，被控八項刑事損壞罪及一項煽動罪
+
+judgment_summary: 被告人承認四項刑事損壞罪及一項煽動罪。法庭認為被告人在公眾地方塗鴉，內容涉及詆毀國家領導人、咒罵中共政權、侮辱國歌及鼓吹台灣獨立，危害國家安全。每項刑事損壞罪以4個半月為量刑起點，認罪後各判監3個月；煽動罪以12個月為量刑起點，認罪後判監8個月。考慮數罪併罰原則，部分刑期分期執行，總刑期為8個月又8星期。法庭強調必須以阻嚇性刑罰防止危害國家安全的行為。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKMAGC
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區東區裁判法院
+
+case_location: 東區裁判法院
+
+case_object:
+  - 公眾行人天橋升降機門
+  - 黑色麥克筆
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 四項刑事損壞罪（控罪一、二、八、九）
+    result: 每項判監3個月，部分刑期分期執行
+  - charge: 一項煽動罪（控罪六）
+    result: 判監8個月
+  - charge: 四項控罪（控罪三、四、五、七）
+    result: 獲控方不提證供起訴，控罪被撤銷
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 國家主席
+    reason: 被塗鴉內容詆毀
+  - entity_name: 中國共產黨
+    reason: 被塗鴉內容咒罵
+  - entity_name: 國歌
+    reason: 被塗鴉內容侮辱
+  - entity_name: 台灣
+    reason: 塗鴉內容鼓吹台灣獨立
+  - entity_name: 47人案
+    reason: 被告人表示對該案裁決不滿而塗鴉
+  - entity_name: 721案
+    reason: 被告人表示對該案裁決不滿而塗鴉

zh_cases_hksct/2002_HKSCT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 章錦城
+  - 何仿嫻
+
+defendant:
+  - International Resort Developments Ltd.
+
+case_reason: 申索人購買時光共享渡假會會籍後發現合約有疑點，指被告人作出不實陳述及合約不合情理，要求取消合約並取回已付訂金
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭裁定被告人的推銷手段不符商業道德，包括利誘、高壓游說、營造成交氣氛、阻止申索人單獨商討等。合約條款對申索人嚴重不利，被告人未能證明擁有聲稱的渡假屋使用權，申索人未付清全數前無權享用渡假屋但需每年支付管理費。法庭根據《不合情理合約條例》裁定合約不合情理，整個合約須予撤銷。被告人須歸還申索人已付款項35,500元連利息及訟費。法庭建議政府考慮立法監管時光共享行業。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_location: 小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 時光共享渡假會會籍合約
+  - 信用卡
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申索人要求取消合約並取回已付款項
+    result: 申索人勝訴，合約被撤銷，被告人須付35,500元連利息及每人訟費500元，反申索被撤銷
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: Club La Costa
+    reason: 被告人聲稱獲其授權出售會籍
+  - entity_name: RCI
+    reason: 時光共享交換組織，會員可交換住宿權
+  - entity_name: CLC Developments Ltd
+    reason: 被告人總公司
+  - entity_name: 消費者委員會
+    reason: 申索人曾向其投訴
+  - entity_name: Director General of Fair Trading
+    reason: 英國監管機構，曾就時光共享推銷手法發表報告

zh_cases_hksct/2015_HKSCT_1/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 莫如柏
+
+defendant:
+  - 彩暉花園業主立案法團
+  - 港深聯合物業管理有限公司
+
+case_reason: 申索人轉售物業時，管理公司表示沒有按金存於業主立案法團，申索人不能轉移管理費按金及公用電錶按金給新業主，申索人要求追討按金
+
+judgment_summary: 申索人曾就相同訴訟因由多次向兩名被告人提出訴訟，過往案件均被審裁處撤銷。法庭根據「已經裁判之事，不再受理」原則，認為申索人不能就相同訴訟因由再次興訟。申索人就相同訴訟因由多次向兩名被告人提出訴訟，明顯屬於無理纏擾。法庭根據《小額錢債審裁處條例》第25條，剔除申索人對兩名被告人的申索。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_location: 小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 管理費按金
+  - 公用電錶按金
+  - 彩暉花園C座4樓C2室
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申索人要求追討管理費按金1,020元及公用電錶按金250元
+    result: 申索被剔除
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 彩暉花園
+    reason: 涉案物業所在屋苑
+  - entity_name: 恒益物業管理有限公司
+    reason: 曾在過往案件中被申索人起訴
+  - entity_name: 周紹和主任審裁官
+    reason: 曾在過往案件中撤銷申索人的申索
+  - entity_name: 李家樂暫委審裁官
+    reason: 曾在過往案件中撤銷申索人的申索
+  - entity_name: 周家明法官
+    reason: 曾駁回申索人的上訴許可申請

zh_cases_hksct/2015_HKSCT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 鄭賜龍
+
+defendant:
+  - 醫院管理局
+
+case_reason: 申索人指其父親於1996年在博愛醫院住院期間疏忽燃點蚊香，導致其父親死亡，申索人於2012年入稟追討賠償
+
+judgment_summary: 申索人的訴訟時限為1999年3月21日，但申索人於2012年7月4日才入稟，超過訴訟時限13年。申索人延誤理由不充分，被告人因延誤導致病房已不存在、醫護人員無法確定、證據遺失，嚴重影響被告人蒐集證據能力。法庭考慮《時效條例》第30條各項因素後，認為訴訟時限條文沒有對申索人造成損害，但凌駕訴訟時限會對被告人造成不公平。法庭決定不行使權力凌駕訴訟時限，剔除申索人的申索。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_location: 小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 蚊香
+  - 博愛醫院C2病房
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申索人要求賠償因父親死亡造成的損失
+    result: 申索因超越訴訟時限被剔除，不作訟費命令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 鄭慈游
+    reason: 申索人父親，於1996年在博愛醫院住院期間死亡
+  - entity_name: 博愛醫院
+    reason: 涉案醫院
+  - entity_name: 醫院管理局公眾投訴委員會
+    reason: 曾處理申索人投訴並作出書面回覆
+  - entity_name: 申訴專員公署
+    reason: 申索人曾向其投訴
+  - entity_name: 陸啟康法官
+    reason: 申索人稱見到其判例才獲得法律理據支持
+  - entity_name: 消費者委員會
+    reason: 申索人曾搜集其蚊香測試報告

zh_cases_hksct/2022_HKSCT_2/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 熊達富
+  - 趙金興
+  - 劉嘉曦
+  - 周雄光
+  - 陳大發
+  - 吳隨有
+  - 阮少碧
+  - 陳志榮
+  - 陳志堅
+
+defendant:
+  - 律政司司長
+
+case_reason: 警方與康文署在通州街公園進行聯合清場行動，將露宿者的私人財物移走並於三日後棄置，各申索人要求賠償損失
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭裁定署方作為非自願托管者，未能行使合理程度的謹慎。署方將物品放入十二架垃圾手推車，沒有系統地擺放供認領，要求老弱傷殘的無家者在一米深的手推車內尋找物品過於強人所難。署方沒有將物品分類或拍照，未達到合理謹慎程度。申索人曾透過社工表明希望取回物品，但署方仍在三天後棄置。法庭裁定署方未能證明已負上非自願托管者應有的責任。各申索人只能證明寢具被棄置，每人獲象徵式賠償100元及判決後利息，不作訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_location: 小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 寢具（床墊、睡袋、摺床、枕頭、被等）
+  - 垃圾手推車
+  - 通州街公園
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 各申索人要求賠償被棄置的私人財物損失
+    result: 各申索人勝訴，被告方須支付每名申索人100元及判決後利息，不作訟費命令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 康樂文化事務署
+    reason: 與警方進行聯合清場行動
+  - entity_name: 通州街公園
+    reason: 清場行動發生地點
+  - entity_name: 吳彥柏督察
+    reason: 負責清場行動的警方指揮官
+  - entity_name: 王先利
+    reason: 康文署公園經理，參與清場行動
+  - entity_name: 吳先生
+    reason: 申索方代表，曾向警方及康文署發電郵查詢
+  - entity_name: 南昌邨
+    reason: 公園附近地點

zh_cases_hksct/2022_HKSCT_3/summary_llm.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+plaintiff:
+  - 熊達富
+  - 劉嘉曦
+  - 周雄光
+  - 吳隨有
+  - 阮少碧
+  - 陳志榮
+
+defendant:
+  - 律政司司長
+
+case_reason: 六名申索人不服2022年3月29日的裁決，要求覆核法庭對賠償金額的評定及未有就精神困擾作出賠償的決定
+
+judgment_summary: 法庭駁回申索人的兩項覆核理由。關於賠償金額評定，法庭重申民事訴訟中提出主張的一方有責任證明損失，申索人提供的單據在判決後才發出，不能證明與遺失物品的關係，法庭評定100元象徵式賠償在法律上沒有錯誤。關於精神困擾賠償，法庭指出審裁官的查訊責任並非絕對，申索人在申索書、證人供詞及審訊中均未提及精神困擾，案中亦無醫療證據支持，法庭毋須就此進行調查。法庭維持原來裁決，撤銷各申索人的覆核申請，不作訟費命令。
+
+jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
+
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_location: 小額錢債審裁處
+
+case_object:
+  - 寢具
+  - 單據（廣興綉莊發出）
+
+judgment_result:
+  - charge: 申索人要求覆核賠償金額評定及精神困擾賠償
+    result: 覆核申請被撤銷，維持原來裁決，不作訟費命令
+
+involved_entities:
+  - entity_name: 林希維審裁官
+    reason: 主審審裁官，作出原來裁決及覆核裁決
+  - entity_name: 廣興綉莊
+    reason: 申索人提供的單據發出者
+  - entity_name: 陳振鴻法官
+    reason: 在謝林案中就審裁官調查責任發出指引
+  - entity_name: 吳美玲暫委法官
+    reason: 在陳啟生案中闡述審裁官調查責任
+  - entity_name: 《小額錢債審裁處條例》
+    reason: 相關法例依據
+  - entity_name: 《勞資審裁處條例》
+    reason: 相關案例引用的法例