summary-fast
parent
011adb00d7
commit
deeaf741d1
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"permissions": {
|
||||||
|
"allow": [
|
||||||
|
"Bash(uv run:*)"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
1st plaintiff, Dr Paul Ki Ping-ki, appeals against Yuen J's decision made on 2 May 2000 regarding an
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal out of time from an order made by Registrar Chu on 30 May 1999
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Appeal against Registrar's order (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The Judge had carefully decided the matter and considered all relevant factors regarding
|
||||||
|
the exercise of her discretion whether to grant an extension of time for Dr Ki to appeal, and she
|
||||||
|
decided correctly on all those four factors.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Contempt of court (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The letter from the Official Receiver dated 20 January 1999 was not an order but
|
||||||
|
rather an opinion held by the Official Receiver, and it did not amount to a contempt of court.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Registrar's jurisdiction (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The Registrar had the jurisdiction to decide whether the judgment sum could be enforced
|
||||||
|
against Next, and her decision was sought by Dr Ki. There was no mistake as alleged by Dr Ki that
|
||||||
|
he had made.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this appeal (CACV 175/2000), Dr Paul Ki Ping-ki and Hong Kong Washington Company appealed against
|
||||||
|
Yuen J's decision granting leave to Next Magazine Publishing Ltd, CHEUNG Kim-hung, Toppan Printing Co
|
||||||
|
(HK) Ltd, YEUNG Wai-hong, and LEE Kwong-fung to set off a debt owed by Dr Ki. The core issues rev
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Leong JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Woo JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Co-presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Dr Paul KI Ping-ki
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Plaintiff in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Washington Company
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Plaintiff in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Next Magazine Publishing Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Defendant in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHEUNG Kim-hung
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Defendant in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Toppan Printing Co (HK) Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Defendant in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: YEUNG Wai-hong
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Defendant in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE Kwong-fung
|
||||||
|
reason: 5th Defendant in the action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Yuen J
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge of the Court of First Instance, whose decision is appealed against.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Registrar Chu
|
||||||
|
reason: Registrar who made the order on 30 May 1999 regarding set-off of debt.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Official Receiver
|
||||||
|
reason: Authority that stated the damages did not form part of Dr Ki's property in bankruptcy.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Appellant appeals against his sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment for dealing with funds,
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- sentence reduction
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Sentence determination (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence from 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment
|
||||||
|
to 2 years' imprisonment, considering the role played by the appellant in the case was less culpable
|
||||||
|
than that of an offender who is 'used' for money laundering without knowledge of the crime behind
|
||||||
|
the proceeds.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In HKSAR v POON LOK MAN (潘樂民), the appellant appealed his sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment
|
||||||
|
for dealing with funds, arguing for a reduction in sentence. The case involved three charges related
|
||||||
|
to property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, where PW1 and PW
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Cheung JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Barma JJA
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in the Court of Appeal who heard the appeal with Hon Cheung JA.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
|
||||||
|
reason: Appellant in the case who pleaded guilty to three charges of dealing with property known or
|
||||||
|
believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: H H Judge Douglas Yau
|
||||||
|
reason: District Court judge who originally sentenced the appellant to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: PW1
|
||||||
|
reason: Person deceived by investment and lottery fraud, remitted HK$355,251.90 into one of the appellant’s
|
||||||
|
bank accounts (charge 1).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: PW2
|
||||||
|
reason: Person deceived by investment and lottery fraud, remitted HK$547,969 and HK$618,835.31 into
|
||||||
|
one of the appellant’s bank accounts (charge 3).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ah Yung
|
||||||
|
reason: Person who had a connection with the inward remittance of HK$618,835.31.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
- MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, claiming coercion due to a prior kid
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- work and travel arrangements
|
||||||
|
- coercion
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The judge did not misdirect the jury on the concept of 'evasive action' and adequately
|
||||||
|
referred to the Applicant's evidence regarding his father’s position.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，被告MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA因涉嫌走私危险毒品被起诉。他辩称自己是在被迫的情况下吞下了毒品，并声称其父亲曾遭绑架，因此被威胁要杀害其家人以迫使他配合。法院审理了控方关于他在2008年7月6日通过腹部异常携带并排出大量海洛因的指控。被告在庭审中坚称自己无辜，并表示之前曾被迫吞下毒品以换取前往广州的机会。最终，高等法院上诉庭认为原审法官对“规避行为”的概念没有误导陪审团，并且充分考虑了被告关于其父亲被绑架的证据。因此，驳回了被告提出的超出时效的上诉申请。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Yuen JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Barnes JJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in the Court of Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: McWalters JJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in the Court of Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge Mackintosh
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge who convicted the Applicant on 21 May 2009.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant and defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Ross of counsel
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Applicant in his appeal.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HO WAI CHING (何惠貞)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "The applicant sought leave to appeal against her conviction after trial by Deputy High Court\
|
||||||
|
\ Judge, "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- conviction for fraud
|
||||||
|
- sentences of imprisonment
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Sentence of Kenny Leung (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court determined that the sentence imposed on Kenny Leung was entirely appropriate.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Sentence of Hui Po Keung (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court quashed 3 months of each of the sentences imposed in respect of Counts
|
||||||
|
4, 6 to 9 and substituted a total sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment for Hui Po Keung.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Sentence of the applicant (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal against sentence and imposed
|
||||||
|
a new sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on the applicant, quashing the previous total
|
||||||
|
sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及何惠貞女士因涉嫌欺诈而被定罪并提出上诉。核心争议在于对四位证人的证据处理方式及其陈述的可信度。法院认为，尽管检方在交叉询问中使用了引导性问题和不当评论，但这些并未实质损害被告的辩护案情。然而，法官在讯问肯尼·梁时的干预被认为是不恰当的。此外，关于Cyberspace公司的文件记录是否在警方调查时可用的问题也进行了讨论。最终，法院允许何惠貞女士针对其刑罚提出上诉，并将她的总刑期从7年3个月减至7年3个月。同时，肯尼·梁和胡宝康的刑罚维持不变。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Lunn JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Andrew Chan (as he was then)
|
||||||
|
reason: Deputy High Court Judge who presided over the trial of the applicant and her co-accuseds.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Kenny Leung
|
||||||
|
reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Hui Po Keung
|
||||||
|
reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Joe Lai Yiu Cho
|
||||||
|
reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
|
||||||
|
adduced.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Danny Ho Kwai Yuen
|
||||||
|
reason: Brother of the applicant, former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized
|
||||||
|
for being improperly adduced.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Ann Ng Mee Lin
|
||||||
|
reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
|
||||||
|
adduced.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Marco Chan Yik Lung
|
||||||
|
reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
|
||||||
|
adduced.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Cyberspeed Technology Company Limited (Cyberspeed)
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the fraud allegations, mentioned as the entity on behalf of which applications
|
||||||
|
were made to banks.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Super Dragon Technology
|
||||||
|
reason: Company associated with Mr Danny Ho Kwai Yuen, a former employee and witness.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Bank that was allegedly defrauded as per the counts of fraud.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- AKTHER MOSAMMAT FATEMA
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
||||||
|
- THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant, Akther Mosammat Fataema, seeks leave from the Court of Final Appeal to appeal against an驳
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The court found no question of great general or public importance and no basis under
|
||||||
|
section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在上诉法庭的判决中，申请人Akther Mosammat Fataema针对非遣返申请拒绝决定提出上诉。法院驳回了她的留请上诉至终审法院的请求。核心争议在于她认为原判未充分考虑其政治恐惧和国家条件风险。法院审查后指出，申请人的论点已在先前判决中详细评估过，并未发现涉及重大公共或一般性问题，亦无其他理由支持终审法院审理此案。最终，法院依据香港高等法院上诉法庭《终审法院条例》第22(1)(b)条驳回了留请上诉的请求。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Yuen JA
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Lisa Wong J
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, co-authored the judgment with Hon Yuen JA.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: DHCJ K.W. Lung
|
||||||
|
reason: Judicial officer who gave the original decision on 16 September 2019 refusing the applicant's
|
||||||
|
application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim, cited in
|
||||||
|
paragraph 1 of this judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: AKTHER MOSAMMAT FATEMA
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant and appellant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
||||||
|
reason: Putative respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
||||||
|
reason: Putative respondent in the case, involved as a government department.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal against her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, cont拈摡
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Refusal to certify points 2 to 5 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court of Appeal's reasons were that the context was plain and straightforward,
|
||||||
|
point 3 did not arise as the trial judge made relevant findings, point 4 was obvious and did not require
|
||||||
|
certification, and point 5 merely went to a complaint about the appellate court's analysis.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Granting leave to appeal for the certified point (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the certified point
|
||||||
|
regarding the constitutional requirement of legal certainty in relation to the offence of conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及莫玉萍女士对因其涉嫌共谋欺诈而被判有罪的上诉申请。原告为莫玉萍，被告为香港特别行政区。案件核心在于是否允许莫玉萍就其共谋欺诈罪的定罪提出上诉，并针对四个争议点请求法院认证或授予上诉许可。法院分析了证据评估及法律适用问题，认为第2至5项争议点缺乏实质意义，拒绝认证这些争议点。最终，法院仅同意认证并授予莫玉萍就关于共谋欺诈罪构成要件不明确的争议点提出上诉的许可，并允许其基于重大不公正理由对其他争议点提起上诉。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as Chief Justice in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as Permanent Judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as Permanent Judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MO YUK PING
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- KENSLAND REALTY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- TAI, TANG CHONG
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Kensland Realty Limited appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing its action for损害赔偿
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- damages
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: "Kensland Realty Limited sued TAI, TANG CHONG for damages after Whale View failed to\
|
||||||
|
\ complete a property purchase by the deadline, leading to Kensland forfeiting Whale View’s deposit.\
|
||||||
|
\ The core issue was whether Kensland's claim was time-barred under Hong Kong's Limitation Ordinance.\
|
||||||
|
\ The court found, "
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KENSLAND REALTY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TAI, TANG CHONG
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir Noel Power NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice McHugh NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
|
||||||
{
|
|
||||||
"Date": "",
|
|
||||||
"Action No.": "",
|
|
||||||
"Neutral Cit.": "",
|
|
||||||
"case_title": "MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE TRADING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MOULIN OPTICAL MANUFACTORY LTD) V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE",
|
|
||||||
"page_title": "undefined | | HKLII",
|
|
||||||
"case_history": [],
|
|
||||||
"appeal_history": [],
|
|
||||||
"case_url": "https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2014/22",
|
|
||||||
"neutral_cit": "[2014] HKCFA 22",
|
|
||||||
"court_code": "HKCFA",
|
|
||||||
"content": "",
|
|
||||||
"attachments": []
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
|
||||||
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
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)
|
||||||
|
- YU OI KEE (余藹琪)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "HKSAR seeks leave to appeal from CACC No. 283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation of 'agent'\
|
||||||
|
\ under "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- the meaning of 'agent' in s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201
|
||||||
|
- construction of 'or other document' in s.9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201
|
||||||
|
- application of common law principles to statutory anti-corruption regime under the Prevention of Bribery
|
||||||
|
Ordinance, Cap. 201
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave application for all three applications (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. Leave is given for the appeals on the specified questions.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) sought leave to appeal from CACC No.
|
||||||
|
283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation of 'agent' under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap.
|
||||||
|
201. The core issues in dispute included: (1) defining 'agent' for s.9 purposes; (2) construing '
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Justice Ma
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Tang PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Geoffrey Ma
|
||||||
|
reason: Chief Justice, cited in paragraph 1 of the determination.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: R A V Ribeiro
|
||||||
|
reason: Permanent Judge, cited in paragraph 1 of the determination.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Robert Tang
|
||||||
|
reason: Permanent Judge, cited in paragraph 1 of the determination.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Edwin Choy and Mr Joe Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the 1st Defendant (Applicant in FAMC 68/2015).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Gerard McCoy SC leading Mr Albert N.B. Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the 2nd Defendant (Applicant in FAMC 69/2015) and Ms Nisha Mohamed.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr William Tam SC, DDPP, and Ms Samantha Chiu, SPP
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the HKSAR (Applicant in FAMC 15/2016).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent/Appellant in all three applications.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant/1st Defendant in FAMC 68/2015 and 1st Respondent in FAMC 15/2016.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: YU OI KEE (余藹琪)
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant/2nd Defendant in FAMC 69/2015 and 2nd Respondent in FAMC 15/2016.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR seeks to refuse leave for Kwok Wing Kin and others to appeal from HCMA No. 187 of 2021, which,
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to appeal
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Leave to appeal for certification and leave (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Refused. The court found that there is no prospect of showing a point of law of great and general
|
||||||
|
importance, as the regulation has expired and its provisions are no longer relevant or important.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在2020年5月1日，八名被告因违反《预防及控制疾病（禁止集会）条例》第6条，在未经警方许可的情况下组织和参与非法集会被控。该条例旨在防止、保护或延缓COVID-19病毒的传播。法院审理后裁定他们构成并参与了超过四人的非法集会，并判处每人监禁14天，缓刑18个月。被告提出上诉被驳回。HKSAR申请撤销对Kwok
|
||||||
|
Wing Kin等人的上诉许可。终审法院认为，《预防及控制疾病（禁止集会）条例》已失效且不再具有重要性，因此拒绝了HKSAR的申请，理由是没有显示任何重大而普遍的重要法律问题。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Robert Tang NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 7th Appellants (Applicants).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jason Kung
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 7th Appellants (Applicants).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: JCC Cheung & Co. Solicitors
|
||||||
|
reason: Law firm that instructed Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat and Mr Jason Kung for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 7th
|
||||||
|
Appellants (Applicants).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Andrew Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Respondent.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Christopher Fung
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Respondent.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department that instructed Mr Andrew Li and Mr Christopher Fung for the Respondent.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision in FACC No. 1 of 2025 regarding the prosecution
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- legal interpretation of transactional agreements
|
||||||
|
- conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Placement/sub-placement agreements were continuing connected transactions (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court did not hear argument directed to whether the placement/sub-placement
|
||||||
|
agreements were continuing connected transactions and therefore expressed no view as to whether they
|
||||||
|
were.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) appealed against a decision in FACC
|
||||||
|
No. 1 of 2025 regarding the prosecution of MAK KWONG YIU and others for conspiracy to defraud. The core
|
||||||
|
issue was whether the placement/sub-placement agreements were continuing connected transaction
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Appellant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- LAI SAU KING
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- LAM CHARP FAT
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "Plaintiff, La Sau King, claims declarations and orders regarding her interest in Shop 6\
|
||||||
|
\ and Flat A, "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- shop ownership
|
||||||
|
- flat ownership
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Declarations that the plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner of the flat and that the defendant
|
||||||
|
holds the legal estate jointly with the plaintiff on trust for the plaintiff (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court considered the taint attached to the money used for purchase but ultimately
|
||||||
|
decided in favor of the plaintiff due to the defendant's conduct.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Declarations that the plaintiff is beneficial owner of the shop as to a percentage to be ascertained,
|
||||||
|
and that the defendant holds the legal estate in the shop on trust for the plaintiff (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court ordered the defendant to pay rental income from the shop to the plaintiff
|
||||||
|
and reserved the terms of sale.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Repayment of $50,000 lent by the plaintiff (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The defendant was ordered to repay the sum of HK$50,000.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Damages for breach of contract amounting to HK$75,262.07 (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The plaintiff was awarded damages for breach of contract in the specified amount.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Counter claim dismissed (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The court rejected the defendant's counterclaim.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Costs of the action (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. An order nisi was made that the plaintiff have the costs of the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Interest on awards (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Hearings required. The court ordered further hearings to determine the precise terms of interest
|
||||||
|
if not agreed upon.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告LAI SAU KING起诉被告LAM CHARP FAT关于其对店铺和公寓的所有权问题。法院审理了多个争议点，包括所有权归属、借款偿还及违约赔偿等。证据评估显示，尽管双方均声称对房产有贡献，但原告提供的婚礼照片和餐厅装饰细节证明了她与被告的关系更为密切，并且被告的解释显得薄弱。最终，法院支持了原告关于其为公寓唯一受益所有者的主张，并判决被告支付租金收入并偿还借款及违约赔偿共计125,262.07港元。此外，法院还裁定被告需承担诉讼费用，并要求进一步确定利息条款。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnett
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LAI SAU KING
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LAM CHARP FAT
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- BIRKENHEAD PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- LAM KAI-MAN (林啟文)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited (原告) claims recovery of land against Lam Kai-man (被告),
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- plot of ground registered as Lot No 769 (part) in Demarcation District No 99, Yuen Long, New Territories
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Lam's exclusive possession of the Area Shaded White except the Marshy Area (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court found that Lam failed to establish continuous possession for a period
|
||||||
|
of 12 years, and thus his possession did not meet the requirements to extinguish the Plaintiff’s title.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Plaintiff's other claims (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Abandoned by the Plaintiff. The court noted that the Plaintiff has abandoned its other claims.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited (原告) sued Lam Kai-man (被告) for recovery of a plot of ground
|
||||||
|
in Yuen Long, New Territories. The core issue was whether Lam had acquired title through adverse possession.
|
||||||
|
The court found that Lam's claim failed as he could not establish continuous 12-year,
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon To J
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the action for recovery of land.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Lam Kai-man (林啟文)
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Defendant, squatter in possession of the land.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Person(s) in Occupation of the Land
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Defendant, squatter in possession of the land.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 郭卓堅
|
||||||
|
- 葉慶祥
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 香港行政長官林鄭月娥女士
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicants seek leave for judicial review challenging the Chief Executive's decision not to appointa
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- appointment of a Commission
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for leave to apply for judicial review (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court dismissed the application as it is not reasonably arguable and has no
|
||||||
|
realistic prospect of success, due to the lack of legal duty on the Chief Executive in Council to
|
||||||
|
appoint a Commission, and the inappropriate nature of the relief sought by the applicants.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及郭卓堅和葉慶祥两位申请人向香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭申请司法复核，挑战行政长官林鄭月娥女士未任命调查委员会的决定。核心争议在于政府是否应成立调查委员会以调查近期因《逃犯条例》修订引发的抗议活动及相关问题。法庭经审理后认为，根据《委任调查委员会条例》第2(1)条及《释义及通则条例》第3条的规定，任命调查委员会的权利属于行政长官会同行政会议，法院无权要求或指示其进行此类任命。此外，申请人未能证明行政长官会同行政会议有法律义务必须作出该任命，亦未提供任何合理依据支持其请求。因此，法庭驳回了申请人的司法复核申请，认为其申请缺乏合理的论点和成功的现实可能性。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Leung Chun-ying
|
||||||
|
reason: Hong Kong Chief Executive, mentioned as 'the Chief Executive' and 'Putative Respondent'.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 郭卓堅
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 葉慶祥
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Anderson Chow J
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge of the High Court, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
- ABDULLAH, MOHAMMAD
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Appellant appeals his conviction for taking employment while remaining in Hong Kong without the授权用户：
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- employment
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conviction of the Appellant (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The Magistrate's finding that the Appellant was the person who served PW1 and the
|
||||||
|
conviction is not unsafe or unsatisfactory, as the evidence can prove the charge beyond a reasonable
|
||||||
|
doubt.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及上诉人穆罕默德·阿卜杜拉赫因在未获授权的情况下在香港从事雇佣活动而被控。原告为香港特别行政区，被告为上诉人穆罕默德·阿卜杜拉赫。法院审查了证据评估及证人的可信度问题。法庭认为，尽管存在身份识别的争议，但陪审官认定证人PW1的证词可靠，并确认上诉人在餐厅内从事雇佣活动的事实。陪审官认为上诉人是被观察到服务PW1的蓝条纹衬衫男子，并据此作出有罪判决。法院指出，陪审官在评估证据和证人可信度方面没有明显错误，因此驳回了上诉人的上诉请求。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SPP of the Department of Justice
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the respondent (HKSAR) in the appeal.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Valles Julie Ann Caranto
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 'Torture Claims Appeal Board/
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office'
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 March 2019 of the '
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- leave to apply for judicial review
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: The Board's decision to refuse to extend time for the applicant to file her notice of appeal
|
||||||
|
(liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court found no merit in the application as the applicant had failed to show
|
||||||
|
any realistic prospect of success and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness.
|
||||||
|
- charge: The Board's decision on extending time for filing notice of appeal (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court found that the Board did not err in refusing to extend the time as the
|
||||||
|
applicant had failed to keep the Director and the Board updated with her address or telephone number.
|
||||||
|
- charge: The Board's decision on other risks, particularly BOR 3 risk (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court found that there was no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Second Decision
|
||||||
|
as the applicant had failed in her claim on the BOR 3 risk.
|
||||||
|
- charge: The applicant's application for judicial review of the Board’s Second Decision (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review, finding no error
|
||||||
|
of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision and that the findings were not open to challenge.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告Valles Julie Ann Caranto申请高等法院原讼法庭撤销被告Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition
|
||||||
|
Office于2019年3月7日作出的拒绝其逾期提交上诉通知决定。法庭经审查相关证据后认为，原告未能证明其有成功的合理前景，并且被告在决定中没有程序上的不公平或法律错误。具体而言，法庭否决了原告关于延长申请期限、其他风险（特别是BOR
|
||||||
|
3风险）以及对被告第二次决定的司法复审申请。法庭引用了多项判例法，强调申请人必须提供有效地址以确保沟通的有效性，并且未能更新地址将导致不利后果。最终，法庭
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Valles Julie Ann Caranto
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, responsible for making decisions regarding non-refoulement claims and
|
||||||
|
torture claims appeals.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Director of Immigration
|
||||||
|
reason: Putative interested party in the case, management authority related to immigration matters.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- cause of death
|
||||||
|
- circumstances connected with death
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
|
||||||
|
and tour escorts (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
|
||||||
|
providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
|
||||||
|
companies and local service providers (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
|
||||||
|
the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
|
||||||
|
and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Kuoni
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong police
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- cause of death
|
||||||
|
- circumstances connected with death
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
|
||||||
|
and tour escorts (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
|
||||||
|
providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
|
||||||
|
companies and local service providers (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
|
||||||
|
the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
|
||||||
|
and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Kuoni
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong police
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- cause of death
|
||||||
|
- circumstances connected with death
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
|
||||||
|
and tour escorts (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
|
||||||
|
providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
|
||||||
|
companies and local service providers (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
|
||||||
|
the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
|
||||||
|
and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Kuoni
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong police
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- cause of death
|
||||||
|
- circumstances connected with death
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
|
||||||
|
and tour escorts (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
|
||||||
|
providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
|
||||||
|
companies and local service providers (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
|
||||||
|
the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
|
||||||
|
and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Kuoni
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong police
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Next of kin of deceased passengers challenge the findings of the Inquest into the deaths arising out
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- findings regarding the collision between Lamma IV and Sea Smooth on 1 October 2012
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Plaintiff's claim for personal injury from assault (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. Court accepted plaintiff's testimony as credible, CCTV showed defendant struck first,
|
||||||
|
defendant also admitted parts of the incident.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Medical expenses and distress damages quantum (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Partially allowed. Awarded medical expenses HK$8,500 and general damages HK$20,000, totaling
|
||||||
|
HK$28,500, with interest and costs.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及死者家属对死因裁判庭关于2012年10月1日Lamma IV与Sea Smooth碰撞事件的裁决提出质疑。核心争议在于碰撞原因及责任归属。法院评估了证据，认为原告证词可信，并依据监控录像和被告部分承认的事实，认定被告先行挑衅并导致冲突。法院援引相关法律，最终判决支持原告，赔偿医疗费用8,500港元及精神损害20,000港元，共计28,500港元，含利息和诉讼费。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Monica Chow
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding coroner in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Hongkong Electric Company Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Organised the outing that included the vessels Lamma II and Lamma IV.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Islands Ferry Company Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Owner of Sea Smooth, a high-speed passenger ferry involved in the collision.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Holdings Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Parent company of Islands Ferry Company Limited, owner of Sea Smooth.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Transport and Housing Bureau
|
||||||
|
reason: Conducted an internal investigation into the practices of the Marine Department following the
|
||||||
|
collision.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Marine Department
|
||||||
|
reason: Subject of the internal investigation conducted by the Transport and Housing Bureau.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Coroners Ordinance
|
||||||
|
reason: Legal framework under which the inquest was held, but not included as per instructions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: Issued an order on 26 July 2023 that led to this inquest, but not included as per instructions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Coleman J
|
||||||
|
reason: High Court judge who refused the application for a death inquest on 24 November 2022, but not
|
||||||
|
included as per instructions.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- TACHING PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Taching Petroleum Company Limited and Shell Hong Kong Limited sue Meyer Aluminium Limited for diesel
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- fuel oil
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，Taching Petroleum Company Limited和Shell Hong Kong Limited起诉Meyer Aluminium Limited，要求其支付柴油油款。被告Meyer
|
||||||
|
Aluminium Limited提出原告之间存在价格固定行为的抗辩，并申请延期提交答辩状及合并审理相关案件。法院认为，鉴于案件尚未完成初步陈述阶段，不宜过早决定合并审理或后续行动事宜。法院指示四起诉讼应共同管理并适当暂缓高等法院的相关诉讼，直至进一步明确争议焦点。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Lee and Ms Lui (counsel for Meyer)
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the defendant in the Taching Action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Catrina Lam and Ms Cherry Xu, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the plaintiff in CTA 1/2018 and HCA 1929/2017.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Kenneth K H Lee and Ms Nana Lui, instructed by Robertsons
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the defendant in all cases.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Eva Sit, instructed by Clifford Chance
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barristers representing the intended intervener in CTA 1/2018 and the plaintiff in HCA
|
||||||
|
1069/2018.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Quantr Limited
|
||||||
|
- Cheung Man Kit
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "Competition Commission claims declarations and orders against the 1st Respondent for contravening\
|
||||||
|
\ a "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- pecuniary penalty
|
||||||
|
- declarations of contravention
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Agreement or concerted practice between the 1st Respondent and B Co (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court found that there was an agreement to exchange future price sensitive information
|
||||||
|
and discuss who would win the Bidding Exercise, which had the object of preventing, restricting, or
|
||||||
|
distorting competition.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 2nd Respondent's involvement in the contravention (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court determined that the 2nd Respondent was involved in the agreement or concerted
|
||||||
|
practice as he was the sole director and shareholder of the 1st Respondent, initiated the Information
|
||||||
|
Exchange, and acted on it by lowering the quotation for Item (2).
|
||||||
|
- charge: Pecuniary penalty calculation (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court agreed with the Commission's recommendation to impose a pecuniary penalty
|
||||||
|
of HK$37,702.26 on the 1st Respondent based on its admission of contravening the First Conduct Rule
|
||||||
|
under s.6 of the Ordinance.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In Competition Commission v Quantr Limited & Another [2020] HKCT 10, Hon Linda Chan J declared that
|
||||||
|
Quantr Limited had contravened the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance and
|
||||||
|
Cheung Man Kit was involved in this contravention. The court found evidence of an agreement to交换竞
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Linda Chan J
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Harris J
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v Kam Kwong Engineering Company Limited & ors
|
||||||
|
[2020] 4 HKLRD 61, at §§6-17, articulated the justifications for adopting the Carecraft procedure.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Godfrey Lam J
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction Company Limited & ors
|
||||||
|
[2020] 2 HKLRD 1229, at §§46-74, articulated the approach of the Tribunal in determining the amount
|
||||||
|
of penalty.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MinterEllison LLP
|
||||||
|
reason: Solicitors for the applicant.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Humphrey & Associates
|
||||||
|
reason: Solicitors for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Linde HKO Limited
|
||||||
|
- Tse Chun Wah
|
||||||
|
- Linde GmbH
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
The Competition Commission seeks orders for the Respondents to make general discovery of documents,虽
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- documents
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for discovery and production of documents (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Declined. The application was not properly formulated as a consequence of which the Tribunal
|
||||||
|
declined to make an order for the Respondents to make discovery at this time.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港特别行政区竞争事务审裁处（以下简称“审裁处”）对林德HKO有限公司、Tse Chun Wah及林德 GmbH提起的反垄断调查申请。申请人要求被申请人提供一般性文件，但未能按照规定程序提出正式申请。审裁处认为，根据《竞争事务审裁处规则》第24条的规定，所有临时性的申请，包括发现和生产文件，必须通过提交形式2的诉状进行。由于申请人未按规定提交诉状，且其在提交材料中假设一般性文件交换是惯例的做法，这与法律规定不符，因此审裁处驳回了申请人的请求。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Harris J
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Competition Commission
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the enforcement action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Linde HKO Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Respondent in the enforcement action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: TSE CHUN WAH
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Respondent in the enforcement action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Linde GMBH
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Respondent in the enforcement action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Jonathan Harris
|
||||||
|
reason: President of the Competition Tribunal, articulated procedural principles regarding discovery
|
||||||
|
and production of documents.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jin Pao SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the applicant (Competition Commission).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Timothy Parker
|
||||||
|
reason: Barrister representing the applicant (Competition Commission).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Eva Sit SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the 1st respondent (Linde HKO Limited).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Joshua Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Barrister representing the 1st respondent (Linde HKO Limited).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Nigel Francis
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the 2nd respondent (TSE CHUN WAH).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Linklaters
|
||||||
|
reason: Law firm instructing Ms Eva Sit SC and Mr Joshua Chan for the 1st respondent.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: YTL LLP
|
||||||
|
reason: Law firm instructing Mr Carter Chim for the 3rd respondent (Linde GMBH).
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Eversheds Sutherland
|
||||||
|
reason: Law firm instructing Mr Jin Pao SC and Mr Timothy Parker for the applicant.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- COMPETITION COMMISSION
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- KAM KWONG ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD
|
||||||
|
- GOLDFIELD N&W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
|
||||||
|
- PACIFIC VIEW ENGINEERING LTD
|
||||||
|
- CHAN KAM SHUI (陳金水)
|
||||||
|
- LAM PO WONG (林保旺)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
The Commission petitions for penalties against Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd and other Responds,
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- penalties
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Declaration that the 3rd Respondent has contravened the First Conduct Rule (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court agreed based on the facts not in dispute, declaring that the 3rd Respondent
|
||||||
|
has contravened the First Conduct Rule.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Declaration that the 5th Respondent was a person involved in the contravention of the First
|
||||||
|
Conduct Rule (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court agreed based on the facts not in dispute, declaring that the 5th Respondent
|
||||||
|
was a person involved in the contravention of the First Conduct Rule.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Costs order for the 3rd and 5th Respondents (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court agreed that if these proceedings are disposed of summarily, an order should
|
||||||
|
be made that the 3rd and 5th Respondents pay the Commission’s costs.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Competition Commission (原告) sought penalties against Kam Kwong Engineering Company
|
||||||
|
Ltd and others for alleged contraventions of the First Conduct Rule under Hong Kong's competition laws.
|
||||||
|
The core issues revolved around whether the third and fifth respondents had breached the rule,1
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: COMPETITION COMMISSION
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KAM KWONG ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD (金光工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: GOLDFIELD N&W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD (聯合金輝建築工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: PACIFIC VIEW ENGINEERING LTD (豪景工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN KAM SHUI (陳金水)
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LAM PO WONG (林保旺)
|
||||||
|
reason: 5th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Harris J in Chambers
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: G Lam J (as he then was)
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge who issued judgment on 29 April 2020 in CTEA 2/2017, cited in paragraph 34 of this judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKHA’s DCS
|
||||||
|
reason: Management authority of the Decoration Contractor System under the Hong Kong Housing Authority.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
- ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LIMITED
|
||||||
|
- JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LIMITED
|
||||||
|
- YORK INTERNATIONAL (NORTHERN ASIA) LIMITED
|
||||||
|
- JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PLC
|
||||||
|
- LEE YUI MING
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "Commission and ATAL seek judicial review challenging the Tribunal's decision directing questions\
|
||||||
|
\ on "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- judicial review
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Refusal to grant leave to appeal in respect of the determination of Kam Kwong applications (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court found that there was no material point of law involved and the Commission's
|
||||||
|
wish to reargue the matter before the Court of Appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of
|
||||||
|
success.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Refusal to grant leave to appeal in respect of disclosure decision (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Court found that it did not have a reasonable prospect of success or raise an
|
||||||
|
issue on which it would be helpful for the Court of Appeal to opine.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Direction regarding hearing of two proceedings together (disposition issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal directed that the two proceedings be heard together with liberty to apply,
|
||||||
|
and ordered that 80% of the costs in both proceedings be paid by the Commission; 20% be paid by the
|
||||||
|
1st Respondent to the 3rd to 7th Respondents in CTEA 2/2022 and 2nd to 5th Respondents in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
with a certificate for two counsel.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Competition Commission sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision directing
|
||||||
|
questions on liability issues in two proceedings (CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023). The core issue was whether
|
||||||
|
leave should be granted to appeal the Tribunal’s decisions. The Court assessed evidence and,
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Harris J
|
||||||
|
reason: President of the Competition Tribunal, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Jonathan Harris
|
||||||
|
reason: President of the Competition Tribunal
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
reason: Case number in the Competition Tribunal
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
reason: Case number in the Competition Tribunal
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Competition Commission
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: ANALOGUE HOLDINGS LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: SHUN HING ENGINEERING CONTRACTING COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: SHUN HING HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: SER KA WAI
|
||||||
|
reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHENG KIT SHUN
|
||||||
|
reason: 6th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KWAN SIU KIN
|
||||||
|
reason: 7th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: YORK INTERNATIONAL (NORTHERN ASIA) LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PLC
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YUI MING
|
||||||
|
reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Norman NIP SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Leticia Tang
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jonathan Fung
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Abraham Chan SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Joshua Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Ebony Ling
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 3rd respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Dicky Cheung
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jonathan Ip
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Patrick Siu
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The 7th respondent appeared in person
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Norman NIP SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Leticia Tang
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jonathan Fung
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Abraham Chan SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 1st respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Joshua Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 1st respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Paul Shieh SC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Jonathan Ng
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Stephen Crosswell, solicitor advocate of Baker & McKenzie
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The 5th respondent was not represented and did not appear
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- FONG CHI YUNG trading as LONG FAI BUS CO.
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG HOI YING
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff FONG CHI YUNG trading as LONG FAI BUS CO claims damages from defendant CHEUNG HOI YING for
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- damages in the total sum of $124,570
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: P's claim (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently support P’s allegation of
|
||||||
|
illegality in the routes assigned to D, and considered it unlikely that P would benefit public policy
|
||||||
|
by invalidating the employment contract on such grounds.
|
||||||
|
- charge: D's counterclaim (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court awarded D $23,677.70 with interest from November 4, 2002, until payment.
|
||||||
|
Additionally, P is ordered to pay D’s costs of defence and counterclaim including all reserved costs,
|
||||||
|
to be taxed if not agreed.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告FONG CHI YUNG（LONG FAI BUS CO）指控被告CHEUNG HOI YING违反雇佣合同并侵占公司财物，要求赔偿124,570港元。法院审理后认为，证据不足以支持原告关于被告非法分配路线的主张，并裁定原告未能证明被告存在违约或侵占行为。相反，法院接受了被告的反诉，判决原告向被告支付23,677.70港元及利息，并承担被告的诉讼费用。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: FONG CHI YUNG t/a LONG FAI BUS CO
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHEUNG HOI YING
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy District Judge J. Ko in Court
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms. Wong (counsel for FONG CHI YUNG t/a LONG FAI BUS CO)
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the plaintiff in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr. Iu (solicitor for CHEUNG HOI YING)
|
||||||
|
reason: Solicitor and representative of the defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- SUPER POWER PROPERTIES LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- TANG HING CHEUNG
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff, Super Power Properties Limited, claims to set aside a judgment entered in default on 10th
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- judgment
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Setting aside of judgment on 10 February 2009 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court found that the service of the Writ was irregular and accepted the defendant's
|
||||||
|
credible case that he had not received it, despite evidence to the contrary from the plaintiff.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
Super Power Properties Limited sued Tang Hing Cheung for setting aside a default judgment entered on
|
||||||
|
February 10, 2009. The core issue was whether the service of the writ was irregular and if Tang Hing
|
||||||
|
Cheung had received it. The court assessed evidence from both parties, considering that Tang Hing,
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Super Power Properties Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Tang Hing Cheung
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Her Honour Judge Mimmie Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Kent Yee
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Plaintiff.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Bethany M.Y. Chan
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Defendant.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- GAO Huachang
|
||||||
|
- GAO Shixin
|
||||||
|
- CAI Jingxiang
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Defendants, having illegally entered Hong Kong, were jointly charged with theft and illegal remain,罪
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- Incense Tree
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Theft charge (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court considered the appropriate starting point for the theft charge to be 3.5
|
||||||
|
years’ imprisonment, with a reduction of 1/3 due to pleas and further reductions based on mitigating
|
||||||
|
factors.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Theft charge (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Enhanced by 25%. The court considered the nature and extent of harm caused to the community
|
||||||
|
and enhanced the sentence accordingly. The final sentences are 38 months for D1 and D3, and 33 months
|
||||||
|
for D2.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Illegal remaining in Hong Kong (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court referred to the tariff in So Man-king [1989] 1 HKLR 142 and sentenced each
|
||||||
|
defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment for their respective illegal remaining charge.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Total sentence (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. D1 and D3 have a total of 38 months,
|
||||||
|
while D2 has a total of 33 months imprisonment.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及被告GAO Huachang、GAO Shixin及CAI Jingxiang非法入境香港并盗窃Incense Tree一案。法院审理了盗窃罪和非法滞留罪的核心争议，认为三名被告共同策划盗伐濒危植物，性质恶劣且数量较大，判处GAO
|
||||||
|
Huachang和GAO Shixin各38个月监禁，CAI Jingxiang33个月监禁。对于盗窃罪，法院以3.5年为起点，并考虑认罪等因素减刑25%，最终确定GAO Huachang和GAO Shixin的刑期分别为35个月，CAI
|
||||||
|
Jingxiang为30个月。非法滞留罪方面，依据So Man-king案判例判处各15个月监禁。综合考量后，法院决定将
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy District Judge A. Yim
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Miss Sheroy Tam, SPP, of the Department of Justice
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing HKSAR.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Kam Yee Wai Andrew, of Messrs. Kam & Fan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing all Defendants.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department involved in the prosecution.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: GAO Huachang (D1)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: GAO Shixin (D2)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CAI Jingxiang (D3)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- LI KUEN KWAI JAY
|
||||||
|
- LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- LOK CHUN CHEONG 1st Defendant
|
||||||
|
- CHUNG KIT CHU 2nd Defendant
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs, joint owners and occupants of Flat 5E, claim against Defendants for water seepage from a
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- water seepage damages
|
||||||
|
- repair costs
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Plaintiffs' claim for water seepage from Defendants' premises (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court accepted the Plaintiffs' evidence regarding the deteriorating water seepage
|
||||||
|
condition and the Defendants' failure to investigate or repair the source of the leakage, despite
|
||||||
|
legal principles suggesting otherwise.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及原告LI KUEN KWAI JAY和LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN与被告LOK CHUN CHEONG及CHUNG KIT CHU之间的水渗漏损害纠纷。原告指控被告的6E单位导致5E单位天花板渗水，要求赔偿修复费用并停止渗水行为。法院认为，尽管存在争议，但根据《建筑物管理条例》及相关法律原则，被告确实负有维护其物业以避免对其他业主造成损失或不便的合同和普通法上的注意义务。原告提交了证据证明渗漏情况及其持续时间，并指出被告未能调查或修复漏水源头。法院接受了原告关于渗水来源为被告单位的主张，认为被告违反了上述义务。最终，法院支持了原告要求被告承担修复费用及停止渗水行为的诉求
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy District Judge Barbara Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LI KUEN KWAI JAY and LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiffs in the civil action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LOK CHUN CHEONG
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Defendant in the civil action.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHUNG KIT CHU
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Defendant in the civil action.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- NG SHEUNG YEE
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff Mr Tam claims damages from defendant for personal injuries caused by defendant's dangerous
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- personal injury damages
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Disqualification from driving (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Partially allowed. The defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence
|
||||||
|
for all classes of vehicles for a period of 2 years, but the court orders that the defendant cannot
|
||||||
|
drive after the disqualification period until he has passed a test of competence to drive.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及原告Tam先生对被告Ng Sheung Yee因驾驶不当导致人身伤害提起的损害赔偿诉讼。核心争议在于被告是否在事故发生时存在注意力不集中或短暂低血压等影响驾驶能力的情况，以及其应承担的责任程度。法院经审理认为，尽管被告有50多年的驾驶经验且未违反交通法规，但未能及时注意到信号灯变化并闯红灯，因此认定其因疏忽导致事故的发生。法院还考虑了被告的悔罪态度及早认罪等因素，最终判处被告缓刑9个月，并在接下来12个月内不得驾驶，如再犯将撤销缓刑。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HH Judge Dufton
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Phil Chau
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel on fiat, representing HKSAR.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Derek Chan SC leading Ms Jolie Chao and Ms Vanessa Ho instructed by Wong & Co
|
||||||
|
reason: Barristers representing the defendant.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Kwan Sio Wa Becky
|
||||||
|
- Wu Yee Mei Vera
|
||||||
|
- Ho Kit Man Jenny
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
|
||||||
|
employee (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告Kwan Sio Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny向香港特别行政区劳资审裁处提出申诉，要求 Cathay Pacific Airways
|
||||||
|
Limited 更正其关于产假、休息日、病假、假期及年假工资的计算。主要争议点在于每日假期工资（SHP）和年假工资（ALP）的计算方法是否符合《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条的规定。法院在分析证据时，重点考察了原告提供的工资记录及相关法律条款。根据《雇佣（修订）条例》，工资包括员工因产假、休息日等期间获得的所有报酬，并规定了计算每日平均工资的方法，排除了未支付或部分支付的工资天数的影响。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
|
||||||
|
reason: Clerk to Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer, involved in preparing the corrigendum.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WU YEE MEI VERA
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HO KIT MAN JENNY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Kwan Siu Wa Becky
|
||||||
|
- Wu Yee Mei Vera
|
||||||
|
- Ho Kit Man Jenny
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
|
||||||
|
employee (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告Kwan Siu Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny指控被告Cathay Pacific Airways Limited未按规定支付产假、休息日、病假、法定假日及年假期间的工资。案件涉及劳资审裁处管辖下的工资计算问题，具体包括产假和年假工资的日率计算。经审理，Pang
|
||||||
|
Ka Kwong副主席官评估了双方提交的证据，并引用了《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条关于工资及年假工资日率的规定，指出在计算工资时应考虑员工未支付或未全额支付工资的情况。最终，劳资审裁处决定对相关条款进行修正，以确保符合法律规定，并发布了更正文件。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
|
||||||
|
reason: Clerk to Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer, involved in the preparation of corrigendum.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WU YEE MEI VERA
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HO KIT MAN JENNY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in this case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Kwan Sio Wa Becky
|
||||||
|
- Wu Yee Mei Vera
|
||||||
|
- Ho Kit Man Jenny
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
|
||||||
|
employee (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: No specific judgment result provided.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在本案中，原告Kwan Sio Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny诉Cathay Pacific Airways Limited要求更正劳工法例中的工资条款。主要争议点在于产假、休息日、病假、假期及年假期间的工资计算问题以及年假工资的日均计算方法。法院依据《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条进行了详细分析，指出在计算带薪休假和年假工资时应考虑员工未支付或未全额支付工资的情况，并明确任何因产假、休息日、病假、假期或年假而未支付的工资不应计入平均工资。最终，法院决定对《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条的相关条款进行更正，以确保符合法律规定。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in LBTC 2827/2008.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WU YEE MEI VERA
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in LBTC 2828/2008.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HO KIT MAN JENNY
|
||||||
|
reason: Claimant in LBTC 2829/2008.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||||
|
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）
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiffs claim severance payments from defendant, with the application for review being rejected.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- severance payments
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: The five Claimants’ claims under item (A) for severance payments (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: "Allowed. The Defendant shall pay forthwith: HK$13,412.05 to the 3rd Claimant, HK$3,003.42 to\
|
||||||
|
\ the 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to the 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to the 9th Claimant, and HK$13,826.82\
|
||||||
|
\ to the 11th Claimant."
|
||||||
|
- charge: The five Claimants’ claims under the second item for terminal payments (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed.
|
||||||
|
- charge: "The Defendant shall pay forthwith costs of: HK$197 to the 3rd Claimant, HK$1,020 to the 4th\
|
||||||
|
\ Claimant, HK$180 to the 7th Claimant, HK$290 to the 9th Claimant, and HK$199 to the 11th Claimant\
|
||||||
|
\ (liability issue)"
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Interest on the above judgment sums shall be calculated in accordance with section 39(3) of
|
||||||
|
the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap 25) and be paid by the Defendant (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. Interest will be calculated as per the relevant provisions.
|
||||||
|
- charge: The Defendant’s application for review (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Rejected. The Defendant failed to put forward any additional grounds in support of the application
|
||||||
|
for review.
|
||||||
|
- charge: The Defendant’s application for a stay of payment-out to the five Claimants of the sum of HK$67,996.81
|
||||||
|
(liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The application was deemed unjustified due to the temporal impact on the senescent
|
||||||
|
claimants and other relevant factors.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, CHENG KWOK WAH et al., former employees of LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED (利興清潔服務有限公司),
|
||||||
|
sued for severance payments and terminal benefits. The Labour Tribunal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
|
||||||
|
on their claims for severance payments, ordering immediate payment of HK$13,412.05 to 3
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms. Michelle Lam
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHENG KWOK WAH（鄭國華）
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LAI AH LOI（黎亞來）
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LIU FAT HOI（廖發開）
|
||||||
|
reason: 7th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HO CHING HOI（何清海）
|
||||||
|
reason: 9th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HSU CHE CHEONG（徐志中）
|
||||||
|
reason: 11th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED（利興清潔服務有限公司）
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||||
|
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）
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
The five claimants, including Cheng Kwok Wah, claim severance payments or terminal payments from the
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- severance payments
|
||||||
|
- terminal payments
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Defendant's liability for severance payments (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court found that the Defendant cannot avoid liability for severance payments as
|
||||||
|
the Claimants did not indicate they would switch to another company and were awaiting specific arrangements
|
||||||
|
from the Defendant.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Severance payment quantum (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Defendant is ordered to pay severance payments of HK$13,412.05 to the 3rd Claimant,
|
||||||
|
HK$3,003.42 to the 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to the 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to the 9th Claimant,
|
||||||
|
and HK$13,826.82 to the 11th Claimant.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Claimants' claims for terminal payments (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The court dismissed the claims for terminal payments as severance payments were allowed.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及郑国华等五名原告与利兴清洁服务有限公司之间的雇佣关系终止及补偿金争议。原告主张被告应支付遣散费或终止协议金，理由是被告未续签劳动合同且单方面变更工作时间，构成严重违约。法院经审理认为，被告未能证明原告自愿离职或因其他原因主动辞职，因此判决支持了原告关于遣散费的诉求，并确定具体金额分别为郑国华13,412.05港元、黎亚来3,003.42港元、廖发开21,848港元、何清海13,827.86港元及徐志中13,826.82港元。法院还指出，鉴于原告有权因被告违约而终止合同，故驳回了关于终止协议金的诉求。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms. Michelle Lam
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: FEHD (Food and Environmental Hygiene Department)
|
||||||
|
reason: Management authority that entered into contracts with the Defendant for street cleaning services.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Li Hing Cleaning Services Co. Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in this case, providing cleaning services to FEHD.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Cheng Kwok Wah（鄭國華）
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Lai Ah Loi（黎亞來）
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Liu Fat Hoi（廖發開）
|
||||||
|
reason: 7th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ho Ching Hoi（何清海）
|
||||||
|
reason: 9th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hsu Che Cheong（徐志中）
|
||||||
|
reason: 11th Claimant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- CHINA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant, Chow Chi Keung, claims compensation from respondent, China Light & Power Company Limited,
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- compensation for diminution in value of property
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Diminution of value due to wayleave (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The court found that while the transmission lines cross only two-thirds of the property,
|
||||||
|
their presence affects the entire property and significantly detracts from its appearance and enjoyment.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Quantification of compensation (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Partially allowed. The court determined a lump sum compensation of HK$20,000 for the diminution
|
||||||
|
in value of the applicant's property and awarded interest since March 30, 1981.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, Chow Chi Keung, a registered Crown lessee, sued China Light & Power Company Limited for
|
||||||
|
compensation due to the construction of a 400 KV transmission network affecting his property's value.
|
||||||
|
The core issues were whether the company was liable and how much compensation should be awarded.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: His Honour Judge Cruden
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: M.W. Phillips, Esq.
|
||||||
|
reason: Member of the Tribunal, involved in the decision-making process.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: China Light & Power Company Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, responsible for constructing the 400 KV transmission network.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chow Chi Keung
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case, registered Crown lessee of the land affected by the construction.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Chan Yuk Wah
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Richards, Cameron Keith
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant, landlord Chan Yuk Wah, claims possession and payment of arrears of rent from tenant, Mr.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- possession
|
||||||
|
- arrears of rent
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Agreement on rent reduction (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The Tribunal found that there was no valid agreement due to lack of consideration
|
||||||
|
passed from the Applicant to the Respondent, and the third letter from the Applicant attempted to
|
||||||
|
repudiate or withdraw the offer.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Arrears of rent (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Ordered. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant arrears of rent for the period from 6th March
|
||||||
|
2004 to 5th April 2004 in the sum of HK$3840 and the arrears of rent/mesne profits from 6th April
|
||||||
|
2004 until the date of delivery of vacant possession at the rate of HK$18,000 per month.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Costs (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Ordered. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant's costs of this application fixed at HK$800.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, Chan Yuk Wah (the applicant) sought possession and payment of arrears of rent from Richards,
|
||||||
|
Cameron Keith (the respondent). The dispute centered around the validity of an agreement for a rent
|
||||||
|
reduction. The court found that there was no valid agreement due to the lack of consideration
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Member C.Y. LAM
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chan Yuk Wah
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant of the possession application.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Richards, Cameron Keith
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent of the possession application.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- SOUND VIEW ENTERPRISES LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- CHAN KAI LUNG LERRY
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Sound View Enterprises Limited claims against Chan Kai Lung Lerry for specific performance of a land
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- land title
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In the case between Sound View Enterprises Limited (the plaintiff) and Chan Kai Lung Lerry (the defendant),
|
||||||
|
the plaintiff sought specific performance of a land agreement. The core issue was whether the defendant
|
||||||
|
should fulfill his contractual obligations regarding the transfer of land title. Deputy判
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Deputy Judge WONG, Presiding Officer, Lands Tribunal
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: SOUND VIEW ENTERPRISES LIMITED
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN KAI LUNG LERRY
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision on case management from 3 November, citing potential
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- refunds
|
||||||
|
- financial disadvantage
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Review application to reconsider decision on staying appeals (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Denied. The judge found no good and cogent reasons to revisit the decision made by this court
|
||||||
|
on 3 November that there should not be any lifting of those stays pending the outcome of the test
|
||||||
|
appeal.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: "CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (the plaintiff) sought a review of the decision from Hon\
|
||||||
|
\ Lam J, President of the Lands Tribunal, dated 3 November, which decided to stay appeals pending a\
|
||||||
|
\ test appeal. The core issue was whether there should be reconsideration of the case management decision.\
|
||||||
|
\ The court's "
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hon Lam J, President of the Lands Tribunal
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Richard Wilmot
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barrister representing CLP Power Hong Kong Limited.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan
|
||||||
|
reason: Law firm representing CLP Power Hong Kong Limited.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Bernard Man
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel/barrister representing the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Department of Justice
|
||||||
|
reason: Government department representing the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- YING KONG COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
The Applicant (Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion) seeks to challenge Ying Kong Company Limited
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- the validity and enforceability of the contract between the Applicant and SKLAC, Solicitors & Notaries
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for stay on the ground set out in paragraph 1(a) of the amended summons (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court found that SKLAC had proper authority to act for and on behalf of the
|
||||||
|
IO, and there is no basis to say that these applications were commenced or continued without such
|
||||||
|
authority.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Application for stay on the ground set out in paragraph 1(b) of the amended summons (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court found that SKLAC had validly notified their intention to act for the IO,
|
||||||
|
and there is no basis to set aside this notice.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Ordering SKLAC to bear costs personally (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Denied. There is no basis for ordering SKLAC to be personally liable for the costs of these
|
||||||
|
applications on an indemnity basis.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Any other order for the further conduct of these Applications (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Dismissed. The court concluded that section 20A(7) does not apply, and Ying Kong’s amended summons
|
||||||
|
is dismissed with costs to the IO.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Costs (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: The amended summons is dismissed with costs to the IO on the District Court scale. Costs shall
|
||||||
|
be taxed if not agreed upon within 14 days, and a certificate for counsel will be required.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion (IO) sought to challenge Ying Kong Company
|
||||||
|
Limited and Messrs S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co (SKLAC), Solicitors & Notaries, regarding the validity
|
||||||
|
and enforceability of their contract. Key issues included whether SKLAC had proper authority to act
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: His Hon Judge Leung
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ying Kong Company Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case against The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case against Ying Kong Company Limited.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Messrs S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co (SKLAC)
|
||||||
|
reason: Solicitors acting for The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion in these Applications.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- CHAN NAI MING
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff seeks protection against defendant's criminal infringement of copyright, challenging the正当
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- copyright infringement
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Sentence for BitTorrent distribution (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Imposed. The court determined that the defendant's actions were not suitable for community service
|
||||||
|
and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, emphasizing that future offenders should be deterred
|
||||||
|
with potentially harsher sentences.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, HKSAR (plaintiff) sought protection against CHAN NAI MING's (defendant) criminal infringement
|
||||||
|
of copyright through BitTorrent distribution. The core issue was the defendant's liability for distributing
|
||||||
|
copyrighted material without permission. The court analyzed evidence related to the3
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Colin Mackintosh, Magistrate
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Choi Sai-lok
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as a defendant in the case Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334, articulated
|
||||||
|
principles related to intellectual property rights infringement.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Secretary for Justice
|
||||||
|
reason: Party involved in the case Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Securities and Futures Commission
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- C.L. Management Services Limited
|
||||||
|
- AU Suet-ming, Clarea
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU\
|
||||||
|
\ Suet-ming, "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- unlicensed business operation
|
||||||
|
- aiding and abetting
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Michael's involvement in the case (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court found that Michael’s testimony was not credible due to his self-incrimination
|
||||||
|
risk and the prosecution’s lack of proper handling.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（原告）对C.L.管理服务有限公司及其代表AU Suet-ming, Clarea的指控，包括未获许可进行受监管活动以及协助和教唆。法院分析了相关法律条款，并引用了Hin
|
||||||
|
Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 13 HKCFAR 142及Kulemesin Yuriy & Tang Dock Wah v HKSAR [FACC 6 and 7 of 2012]的判例，认为涉及监管事务的罪行应被视为绝对责任。法院指出，鉴于此类罪行的社会影响较小且立法意图在于确保尽职行为而非证明故意或过失，因此不应要求证明被告方具有主观过错。最终判决C.L.管理服务公司
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case, responsible for prosecuting C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming,
|
||||||
|
Clarea.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: C.L. Management Services Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in a regulated activity without a
|
||||||
|
license.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: AU Suet-ming, Clarea
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant 2 in the case, accused of aiding and abetting D1's offenses.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Magistrate June Cheung
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge at the Eastern Magistrates Court during the trial.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- HO CHUNG YI HENRY
|
||||||
|
- WONG PAK LAM
|
||||||
|
- HIEN LEE ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR, regarding the defendants' alleged breach of contract and tortious acts in connection with a 3
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- contract performance
|
||||||
|
- damages
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In KCS 4906-4911/2013, the HKSAR sued Ho Chung Yi Henry, Wong Pak Lam, and Hieng Lee Engineering Company
|
||||||
|
Limited for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a construction project. The core
|
||||||
|
issues revolved around the defendants' performance under the contract and any resultant harm
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chief Magistrate, Mr Clement Lee
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Toby Jenkyn-Jones
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the defendants (Ho Chung Yi Henry, Wong Pak Lam, Hieng Lee Engineering
|
||||||
|
Company Limited) as indicated in the Representation section at the end of the judgment.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Securities and Futures Commission
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- C.L. Management Services Limited
|
||||||
|
- AU Suet-ming, Clarea
|
||||||
|
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_reason: "Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU\
|
||||||
|
\ Suet-ming, "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- unlicensed business operation
|
||||||
|
- aiding and abetting
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Michael's involvement in the case (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Disallowed. The court found that Michael’s testimony was not credible due to his self-incrimination
|
||||||
|
risk and the prosecution’s lack of proper handling.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（原告）对C.L.管理服务有限公司及其代表AU Suet-ming, Clarea的指控，包括未获许可进行受监管活动以及协助和教唆。法院分析了相关法律条款，并引用了Hin
|
||||||
|
Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 13 HKCFAR 142及Kulemesin Yuriy & Tang Dock Wah v HKSAR [FACC 6 and 7 of 2012]的判例，认为涉及监管事务的罪行应被视为绝对责任。法院指出，鉴于此类罪行的社会影响较小且立法意图在于确保尽职行为而非证明故意或过失，因此不应要求证明被告方具有主观过错。最终判决C.L.管理服务公司
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission
|
||||||
|
reason: Plaintiff in the case, responsible for prosecuting C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming,
|
||||||
|
Clarea.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: C.L. Management Services Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in a regulated activity without a
|
||||||
|
license.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: AU Suet-ming, Clarea
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant 2 in the case, accused of aiding and abetting D1's offenses.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Magistrate June Cheung
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge at the Eastern Magistrates Court during the trial.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Chow Hang Tung (鄒幸彤)
|
||||||
|
- D1 Tang Ngok Kwan (鄧岳君)
|
||||||
|
- D5 Tsui Hon Kwong (徐漢光)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKMagC
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區裁判法院
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung and others, regarding failure to comply with notice to provide information on
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- information
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Defendants' compliance with the Notice (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Convicted. The court found that the Defendants were obliged to answer and their non-compliance
|
||||||
|
was unjustified, as established beyond reasonable doubt.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在HKSAR与鄒幸彤及其他被告一案中，原告指控被告未按要求提供信息。裁判法院经审理后认为，被告有义务回应并提交所需信息，其未能履行该义务构成违法行为。证据评估显示，证人PW1和PW2的证词支持了原告关于被告应配合调查的要求。法院援引相关法律条文，强调维护国家安全的重要性及措施的有效性。最终，裁判法院判决被告违反通知要求，必须提供相关信息并承担相应法律责任。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Peter Law, Principal Magistrate
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Party to the case as the prosecution.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chow Hang Tung (鄒幸彤)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Tang Ngok Kwan (鄧岳君)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Tsui Hon Kwong (徐漢光)
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: PW1
|
||||||
|
reason: Witness or prosecution witness.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: PW2
|
||||||
|
reason: Witness or prosecution witness.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKA (subject organization)
|
||||||
|
reason: Subject of the investigation, possibly a foreign agent as per the judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Asia Democracy Network
|
||||||
|
reason: Organization mentioned in relation to Chow Hang Tung's receipt of funds.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Oriental Daily Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
- The Sun News Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: "Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs\
|
||||||
|
\ in "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- distress damages
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Indecency of the Oriental article (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Found indecent. The photographs were given prominent effect and showed a half-naked body of
|
||||||
|
a model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered indecent.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Indecency of the Sun article (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Found indecent. Similar to the Oriental article, the Sun article showed titillating and seductive
|
||||||
|
photographs of a half-naked model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered
|
||||||
|
indecent.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (plaintiff) sued
|
||||||
|
Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher Limited (defendants) for publishing indecent
|
||||||
|
photographs of a celebrity couple without their consent. The core issue was whether the photos
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr W LEUNG Esq
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms LAM Koon-kun and Mr Tse Wun-shuen, Edward
|
||||||
|
reason: Adjudicators in the case
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Miss Agnes Chan, SGC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA)
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Cheng Huan and Mr Paul Leung, instructed by Messrs Iu, Lai & Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the defendants
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Oriental Daily Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Sun News Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Oriental Daily Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
- The Sun News Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: null
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: null
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: "Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs\
|
||||||
|
\ in "
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- distress damages
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Indecency of the Oriental article (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Found indecent. The photographs were given prominent effect and showed a half-naked body of
|
||||||
|
a model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered indecent.
|
||||||
|
- charge: Indecency of the Sun article (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Found indecent. Similar to the Oriental article, the Sun article showed titillating and seductive
|
||||||
|
photographs of a half-naked model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered
|
||||||
|
indecent.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
In this case, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (plaintiff) sued
|
||||||
|
Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher Limited (defendants) for publishing indecent
|
||||||
|
photographs of a celebrity couple without their consent. The core issue was whether the photos
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr W LEUNG Esq
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms LAM Koon-kun and Mr Tse Wun-shuen, Edward
|
||||||
|
reason: Adjudicators in the case
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Miss Agnes Chan, SGC
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA)
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Cheng Huan and Mr Paul Leung, instructed by Messrs Iu, Lai & Li
|
||||||
|
reason: Counsel representing the defendants
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Oriental Daily Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Sun News Publisher Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: Defendant in the case
|
||||||
|
|
@ -6,14 +6,38 @@ hk_case_extractor.py
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
設計理念
|
設計理念
|
||||||
--------
|
--------
|
||||||
不直接把幾萬字餵給模型，而是：
|
基於對實際香港判決書結構的分析優化：
|
||||||
1. 預處理：規則去噪 + 切段，純規則抽司法區域/案號等高確定性字段
|
1. 預處理：規則去噪 + 切段，純規則抽司法區域/案號等高確定性字段
|
||||||
2. 定位：每個字段只截取對應的高信號區段（通常 < 4k 字）
|
2. 智能定位：
|
||||||
|
- 基礎信息（當事人、案號）：直接從開頭2000字符提取
|
||||||
|
- 判決結果：優先從尾部4000字符提取
|
||||||
|
- 其他字段：使用關鍵詞召回相關段落
|
||||||
3. 分組抽取：拆成 5 次獨立 Ollama 調用，每次只負責 1-3 個字段
|
3. 分組抽取：拆成 5 次獨立 Ollama 調用，每次只負責 1-3 個字段
|
||||||
4. Schema 強制：用 Ollama 0.5+ 的 format=<JSON Schema> 約束輸出
|
4. Schema 強制：用 Ollama 0.5+ 的 format=<JSON Schema> 約束輸出
|
||||||
5. 校驗+重試：對字數、黑名單、結構標註逐項校驗
|
5. 校驗+重試：對字數、黑名單、結構標註逐項校驗
|
||||||
6. judgment_summary 不從原文重生，而從前 4 步結果 + 一段分析段生成
|
6. judgment_summary 不從原文重生，而從前 4 步結果 + 一段分析段生成
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
判決書結構特點（基於實際案例分析）
|
||||||
|
--------------------------------
|
||||||
|
- 開頭部分（前2000字符）：
|
||||||
|
* 案號（如 CACV000175/2000）
|
||||||
|
* 法院名稱和級別
|
||||||
|
* 當事人信息（BETWEEN...AND 格式）
|
||||||
|
* 案件標題
|
||||||
|
* 審理日期和法官信息
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 中間部分：
|
||||||
|
* 案情背景（BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION, 背景, 案情）
|
||||||
|
* 法律分析和推理
|
||||||
|
* 證據評估
|
||||||
|
* 法律原則引用
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 尾部部分（後4000字符）：
|
||||||
|
* 判決結果（JUDGMENT, ORDER, CONCLUSION, 判決, 命令）
|
||||||
|
* 具體命令和裁定
|
||||||
|
* 訟費安排
|
||||||
|
* 法官簽名
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
依賴
|
依賴
|
||||||
----
|
----
|
||||||
pip install requests pyyaml
|
pip install requests pyyaml
|
||||||
|
|
@ -51,6 +75,28 @@ DEFAULT_TIMEOUT = 240
|
||||||
MAX_RETRIES = 2
|
MAX_RETRIES = 2
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# =============================================================================
|
||||||
|
# 0. 語言檢測
|
||||||
|
# =============================================================================
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def detect_language(text: str) -> str:
|
||||||
|
"""檢測文本主要語言：'zh' 或 'en'
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
策略：統計前3000字符中的中文字符比例
|
||||||
|
- 中文字符 > 30%：判定為中文
|
||||||
|
- 否則：判定為英文
|
||||||
|
"""
|
||||||
|
sample = text[:3000]
|
||||||
|
chinese_chars = len(re.findall(r'[\u4e00-\u9fff]', sample))
|
||||||
|
total_chars = len(sample.strip())
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if total_chars == 0:
|
||||||
|
return 'en'
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
chinese_ratio = chinese_chars / total_chars
|
||||||
|
return 'zh' if chinese_ratio > 0.3 else 'en'
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# =============================================================================
|
# =============================================================================
|
||||||
# 1. 預處理：去噪 + 切段 + 規則抽元數據
|
# 1. 預處理：去噪 + 切段 + 規則抽元數據
|
||||||
# =============================================================================
|
# =============================================================================
|
||||||
|
|
@ -64,9 +110,12 @@ JURISDICTION_MAP: dict[str, str] = {
|
||||||
"HKMagC": "香港特別行政區裁判法院",
|
"HKMagC": "香港特別行政區裁判法院",
|
||||||
"HKSCT": "香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處",
|
"HKSCT": "香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處",
|
||||||
"HKLT": "香港特別行政區土地審裁處",
|
"HKLT": "香港特別行政區土地審裁處",
|
||||||
|
"HKLDT": "香港特別行政區土地審裁處",
|
||||||
"HKLD": "香港特別行政區勞資審裁處",
|
"HKLD": "香港特別行政區勞資審裁處",
|
||||||
|
"HKLAT": "香港特別行政區勞資審裁處",
|
||||||
"HKCT": "香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處",
|
"HKCT": "香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處",
|
||||||
"HKCorC": "香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭",
|
"HKCorC": "香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭",
|
||||||
|
"HKCrC": "香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭",
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE = re.compile(
|
NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE = re.compile(
|
||||||
|
|
@ -74,11 +123,35 @@ NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE = re.compile(
|
||||||
re.I,
|
re.I,
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
CASE_NO_RE = re.compile(
|
CASE_NO_RE = re.compile(
|
||||||
r"(FACV|FACC|FAMV|FAMC|CACV|CACC|HCA|HCAL|HCMP|HCCW|HCB|DCCJ|DCMP|SCTC|LBTC|LDPD)"
|
r"(FACV|FACC|FAMV|FAMC|CACV|CACC|CAAG|HCA|HCAL|HCMP|HCCW|HCB|DCCJ|DCMP|SCTC|LBTC|LDPD|LDBM|CCDI|WKCC)"
|
||||||
r"\s*(?:NO\.?)?\s*\d+\s*(?:OF|/|\sof\s)\s*\d{4}",
|
r"\s*(?:NO\.?)?\s*\d+\s*(?:OF|/|\sof\s)\s*\d{4}",
|
||||||
re.I,
|
re.I,
|
||||||
)
|
)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 案號前綴到法院代碼的映射（優先級最高）
|
||||||
|
CASE_NO_PREFIX_MAP: dict[str, str] = {
|
||||||
|
"FACV": "HKCFA", # Final Appeal Civil
|
||||||
|
"FACC": "HKCFA", # Final Appeal Criminal
|
||||||
|
"FAMV": "HKCFA", # Final Appeal Miscellaneous
|
||||||
|
"FAMC": "HKCFA", # Final Appeal Miscellaneous Criminal
|
||||||
|
"CACV": "HKCA", # Court of Appeal Civil
|
||||||
|
"CACC": "HKCA", # Court of Appeal Criminal
|
||||||
|
"CAAG": "HKCA", # Court of Appeal (Administrative)
|
||||||
|
"HCA": "HKCFI", # High Court Action
|
||||||
|
"HCAL": "HKCFI", # High Court Administrative Law
|
||||||
|
"HCMP": "HKCFI", # High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings
|
||||||
|
"HCCW": "HKCFI", # High Court Companies Winding Up
|
||||||
|
"HCB": "HKCFI", # High Court Bankruptcy
|
||||||
|
"DCCJ": "HKDC", # District Court
|
||||||
|
"DCMP": "HKDC", # District Court Miscellaneous Proceedings
|
||||||
|
"SCTC": "HKSCT", # Small Claims Tribunal
|
||||||
|
"LBTC": "HKLAT", # Labour Tribunal (勞資審裁處)
|
||||||
|
"LDPD": "HKLAT", # Labour Tribunal
|
||||||
|
"LDBM": "HKLDT", # Lands Tribunal (土地審裁處)
|
||||||
|
"CCDI": "HKCrC", # Coroner's Court (死因裁判法庭)
|
||||||
|
"WKCC": "HKMagC", # Magistrates' Court (裁判法院)
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def clean_text(raw: str) -> str:
|
def clean_text(raw: str) -> str:
|
||||||
"""去頁眉頁腳、頁碼、多餘空行/空格"""
|
"""去頁眉頁腳、頁碼、多餘空行/空格"""
|
||||||
|
|
@ -92,7 +165,13 @@ def clean_text(raw: str) -> str:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
|
def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
|
||||||
"""純規則：司法區域、案號、案件地點（默認香港特區）"""
|
"""純規則：司法區域、案號、案件地點（默認香港特區）
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
優先級：
|
||||||
|
1. 案號前綴（最可靠）
|
||||||
|
2. Neutral Citation
|
||||||
|
3. 法院全稱匹配
|
||||||
|
"""
|
||||||
meta: dict[str, Any] = {
|
meta: dict[str, Any] = {
|
||||||
"jurisdiction_code": None,
|
"jurisdiction_code": None,
|
||||||
"jurisdiction_name": None,
|
"jurisdiction_name": None,
|
||||||
|
|
@ -100,6 +179,20 @@ def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
|
||||||
"case_number": None,
|
"case_number": None,
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 優先：從案號前綴判斷法院
|
||||||
|
if m := CASE_NO_RE.search(text):
|
||||||
|
case_no = re.sub(r"\s+", " ", m.group(0).strip())
|
||||||
|
meta["case_number"] = case_no
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 提取前綴並映射到法院代碼
|
||||||
|
prefix = m.group(1).upper()
|
||||||
|
if prefix in CASE_NO_PREFIX_MAP:
|
||||||
|
code = CASE_NO_PREFIX_MAP[prefix]
|
||||||
|
meta["jurisdiction_code"] = code
|
||||||
|
meta["jurisdiction_name"] = JURISDICTION_MAP.get(code)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 次優先：Neutral Citation（如果案號未能確定法院）
|
||||||
|
if not meta["jurisdiction_code"]:
|
||||||
if m := NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE.search(text):
|
if m := NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE.search(text):
|
||||||
code = m.group(2).upper()
|
code = m.group(2).upper()
|
||||||
# 規範化大小寫
|
# 規範化大小寫
|
||||||
|
|
@ -109,18 +202,16 @@ def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
|
||||||
meta["jurisdiction_name"] = JURISDICTION_MAP[k]
|
meta["jurisdiction_name"] = JURISDICTION_MAP[k]
|
||||||
break
|
break
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# fallback：靠法院全稱反查
|
# 最後：靠法院全稱反查（僅在前兩者都失敗時使用，且只搜索前2000字符）
|
||||||
if not meta["jurisdiction_code"]:
|
if not meta["jurisdiction_code"]:
|
||||||
|
header = text[:2000] # 只在開頭搜索，避免被引用案例干擾
|
||||||
for code, full in JURISDICTION_MAP.items():
|
for code, full in JURISDICTION_MAP.items():
|
||||||
short = full.replace("香港特別行政區", "")
|
short = full.replace("香港特別行政區", "")
|
||||||
if full in text or short in text:
|
if full in header or short in header:
|
||||||
meta["jurisdiction_code"] = code
|
meta["jurisdiction_code"] = code
|
||||||
meta["jurisdiction_name"] = full
|
meta["jurisdiction_name"] = full
|
||||||
break
|
break
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if m := CASE_NO_RE.search(text):
|
|
||||||
meta["case_number"] = re.sub(r"\s+", " ", m.group(0).strip())
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return meta
|
return meta
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -130,62 +221,61 @@ def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
|
||||||
# 思路：每個抽取目標定義一組「高信號關鍵詞」，掃全文取所有命中位置周圍
|
# 思路：每個抽取目標定義一組「高信號關鍵詞」，掃全文取所有命中位置周圍
|
||||||
# ±half_window 字符的窗口，合併重疊後拼接喂給 LLM。
|
# ±half_window 字符的窗口，合併重疊後拼接喂給 LLM。
|
||||||
# 不依賴判決書的固定章節標題，對結構各異的香港判決書都能工作。
|
# 不依賴判決書的固定章節標題，對結構各異的香港判決書都能工作。
|
||||||
|
#
|
||||||
|
# 優化策略（基於實際案例分析）：
|
||||||
|
# 1. 當事人信息：直接從開頭2000字符提取（通常在 BETWEEN...AND 結構中）
|
||||||
|
# 2. 判決結果：優先從尾部4000字符提取（通常在 JUDGMENT/ORDER/命令 部分）
|
||||||
|
# 3. 其他字段：使用關鍵詞召回策略
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
KEYWORD_GROUPS: dict[str, list[str]] = {
|
KEYWORD_GROUPS: dict[str, list[str]] = {
|
||||||
# Call 1：當事人。集中在抬頭，但也可能在 "本案中，原告..." 等行文中出現
|
# Call 1：當事人 - 不再使用，改為直接截取開頭
|
||||||
"parties": [
|
# 保留此處僅為向後兼容，實際不會被 gather_all 使用
|
||||||
"BETWEEN", "介乎", " AND ",
|
"parties": [],
|
||||||
"申索人", "原告", "原訴人", "上訴人", "覆核申請人", "覆核人", "申請人",
|
|
||||||
"被告", "答辯人", "被上訴人", "答辯方",
|
|
||||||
"Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Appellant", "Respondent", "Applicant",
|
|
||||||
],
|
|
||||||
# Call 2：事由與標的
|
# Call 2：事由與標的
|
||||||
"reason_object": [
|
"reason_object": [
|
||||||
# 段落標題類
|
# 段落標題類
|
||||||
"案情", "背景", "引言", "事實", "案件背景",
|
"案情", "背景", "引言", "事實", "案件背景", "案由",
|
||||||
"INTRODUCTION", "BACKGROUND", "FACTS", "THE FACTS",
|
"INTRODUCTION", "BACKGROUND", "FACTS", "THE FACTS", "General course",
|
||||||
# 主張類
|
# 主張類
|
||||||
"申索", "索償", "訴因", "聲稱", "請求", "本案涉及", "本訴訟",
|
"申索", "索償", "訴因", "聲稱", "請求", "本案涉及", "本訴訟",
|
||||||
"原告聲稱", "申索人聲稱", "申索人指稱",
|
"原告聲稱", "申索人聲稱", "申索人指稱", "上訴人指", "答辯人指",
|
||||||
|
"Plaintiff", "Claimant", "Appellant", "claim", "allege",
|
||||||
# 標的物關鍵詞
|
# 標的物關鍵詞
|
||||||
"賠償", "損失", "損害", "精神困擾", "經濟損失", "醫療費",
|
"賠償", "損失", "損害", "精神困擾", "經濟損失", "醫療費",
|
||||||
"履行", "所有權", "占有", "撤銷", "宣告",
|
"履行", "所有權", "占有", "撤銷", "宣告", "damages", "compensation",
|
||||||
],
|
|
||||||
# Call 3：判決結果
|
|
||||||
"judgment_result": [
|
|
||||||
# 命令類
|
|
||||||
"本席命令", "本庭命令", "本席裁定", "本庭裁定", "命令如下",
|
|
||||||
"DISPOSITION", "ORDER", "CONCLUSION", "I therefore order",
|
|
||||||
# 結果類
|
|
||||||
"判決", "判給", "獲判", "判處", "支付",
|
|
||||||
"勝訴", "敗訴", "部分勝訴", "駁回", "撤銷", "維持", "發還",
|
|
||||||
"ALLOWED", "DISMISSED", "GRANTED", "REFUSED",
|
|
||||||
# 收尾連接詞
|
|
||||||
"因此", "故此", "綜上",
|
|
||||||
],
|
],
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Call 3：判決結果 - 不再使用關鍵詞，改為直接截取尾部
|
||||||
|
# 保留此處僅為向後兼容
|
||||||
|
"judgment_result": [],
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Call 4：涉及實體（法官、律師、引用案例中的法官）
|
# Call 4：涉及實體（法官、律師、引用案例中的法官）
|
||||||
"entities": [
|
"entities": [
|
||||||
# 法官稱謂
|
# 法官稱謂
|
||||||
"法官", "大法官", "審裁官", "裁判官", "首席法官", "常任法官", "非常任法官",
|
"法官", "大法官", "審裁官", "裁判官", "首席法官", "常任法官", "非常任法官",
|
||||||
"Hon.", " J.", " JA ", " CJ ", " PJ ", " NPJ ",
|
"Hon.", " J.", " JA ", " CJ ", " PJ ", " NPJ ", "Coroner", "Judge",
|
||||||
# 代表類
|
# 代表類
|
||||||
"代表", "大律師", "律師", "資深大律師", "代表律師",
|
"代表", "大律師", "律師", "資深大律師", "代表律師",
|
||||||
"Counsel", "Solicitor",
|
"Counsel", "Solicitor", "instructed by", "represented by",
|
||||||
# 案例引用（會在周邊帶出法官名）
|
# 案例引用（會在周邊帶出法官名）
|
||||||
" v ", " v. ", "[19", "[20",
|
" v ", " v. ", " 訴 ", "[19", "[20", "HKCFA", "HKCA", "HKCFI",
|
||||||
],
|
],
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# Call 5：法庭分析（用於 summary 的核心輸入）
|
# Call 5：法庭分析（用於 summary 的核心輸入）
|
||||||
# 注意：避免使用"分析""理由""引用"等單/雙字泛詞——這些在程序性段落、
|
|
||||||
# 目錄、引文索引中也會大量出現，會把召回擴散成全文。
|
|
||||||
# 改用判決書分析段獨有的「本席/本庭 + 動詞」短語錨點。
|
|
||||||
"analysis": [
|
"analysis": [
|
||||||
|
# 法庭觀點標記
|
||||||
"本席認為", "本席接納", "本席不接納", "本席同意", "本席不同意",
|
"本席認為", "本席接納", "本席不接納", "本席同意", "本席不同意",
|
||||||
"本席裁定", "本席拒絕", "本席認同",
|
"本席裁定", "本席拒絕", "本席認同", "本席考慮",
|
||||||
"本庭認為", "本庭接納", "本庭裁定",
|
"本庭認為", "本庭接納", "本庭裁定", "本庭認同", "本庭考慮",
|
||||||
"I find", "I accept", "I do not accept", "I conclude",
|
"I find", "I accept", "I do not accept", "I conclude", "I consider",
|
||||||
"The court finds", "In my view", "In my judgment",
|
"The court finds", "In my view", "In my judgment", "The Court held",
|
||||||
"舉證責任", "審慎責任", "鄰人原則", "替代責任",
|
# 法律原則
|
||||||
"違反", "侵權", "過失",
|
"舉證責任", "審慎責任", "鄰人原則", "替代責任", "合理疑點",
|
||||||
|
"違反", "侵權", "過失", "negligence", "breach", "duty of care",
|
||||||
|
# 證據評估
|
||||||
|
"證據顯示", "根據證據", "證人證供", "可信", "不可信",
|
||||||
|
"evidence shows", "testimony", "credible", "reliable",
|
||||||
],
|
],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -242,22 +332,44 @@ def gather_chunks(text: str,
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def gather_all(text: str) -> dict[str, str]:
|
def gather_all(text: str) -> dict[str, str]:
|
||||||
"""為每個 group 召回對應的上下文片段"""
|
"""為每個 group 召回對應的上下文片段
|
||||||
# 各 group 的窗口大小可微調（parties 偏短，judgment_result 偏密）
|
|
||||||
|
優化策略：
|
||||||
|
1. 基礎信息（當事人）：直接取開頭2000字符，不使用關鍵詞召回
|
||||||
|
2. 判決結果：重點關注尾部4000字符 + 關鍵詞召回
|
||||||
|
3. 其他字段：保持關鍵詞召回策略
|
||||||
|
"""
|
||||||
|
out: dict[str, str] = {}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 1. 當事人信息：直接從開頭2000字符提取
|
||||||
|
out["parties"] = text[:2000]
|
||||||
|
out["_parties_hits"] = "0" # 不使用關鍵詞，標記為0
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 2. 判決結果：優先使用尾部4000字符，再補充關鍵詞召回
|
||||||
|
tail_text = text[-4000:] if len(text) > 4000 else text
|
||||||
|
# 如果尾部不足4000字，用關鍵詞召回補充
|
||||||
|
if len(tail_text) < 4000:
|
||||||
|
kws = KEYWORD_GROUPS["judgment_result"]
|
||||||
|
ctx, hits = gather_chunks(text, kws, half_window=500, max_total=6500)
|
||||||
|
out["judgment_result"] = ctx
|
||||||
|
out["_judgment_result_hits"] = str(hits)
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
out["judgment_result"] = tail_text
|
||||||
|
out["_judgment_result_hits"] = "0" # 直接使用尾部，不計算關鍵詞命中
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 3. 其他字段：使用關鍵詞召回
|
||||||
params: dict[str, tuple[int, int]] = {
|
params: dict[str, tuple[int, int]] = {
|
||||||
"parties": (400, 3000),
|
|
||||||
"reason_object": (500, 6000),
|
"reason_object": (500, 6000),
|
||||||
"judgment_result": (500, 6500),
|
|
||||||
"entities": (400, 6500),
|
"entities": (400, 6500),
|
||||||
"analysis": (500, 6500),
|
"analysis": (500, 6500),
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
out: dict[str, str] = {}
|
for group in ["reason_object", "entities", "analysis"]:
|
||||||
for group, kws in KEYWORD_GROUPS.items():
|
kws = KEYWORD_GROUPS[group]
|
||||||
hw, mt = params[group]
|
hw, mt = params[group]
|
||||||
ctx, hits = gather_chunks(text, kws, half_window=hw, max_total=mt)
|
ctx, hits = gather_chunks(text, kws, half_window=hw, max_total=mt)
|
||||||
out[group] = ctx
|
out[group] = ctx
|
||||||
# 同時保留命中數，便於日誌
|
|
||||||
out[f"_{group}_hits"] = str(hits)
|
out[f"_{group}_hits"] = str(hits)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return out
|
return out
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -333,15 +445,24 @@ PARTIES_SCHEMA = {
|
||||||
"required": ["plaintiff", "defendant"],
|
"required": ["plaintiff", "defendant"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PARTIES_SYSTEM = """你是香港法律文書信息抽取助手。
|
# 中文提示詞
|
||||||
從給定的判決書抬頭中抽取所有當事人完整姓名/機構名。
|
PARTIES_SYSTEM_ZH = """你是香港法律文書信息抽取助手。
|
||||||
- 原告/申索人/上訴人/覆核申請人 → plaintiff
|
從給定的判決書開頭部分抽取所有當事人完整姓名/機構名。
|
||||||
- 被告/答辯人/被上訴人 → defendant
|
|
||||||
|
格式識別：
|
||||||
|
1. 英文格式：BETWEEN ... AND ...
|
||||||
|
2. 中文格式：申請人 ... 對/訴 答辯人 ...
|
||||||
|
3. 混合格式：Plaintiff ... Defendant ...
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
分類規則：
|
||||||
|
- 原告/申索人/上訴人/覆核申請人/Plaintiff/Appellant/Claimant/Applicant → plaintiff
|
||||||
|
- 被告/答辯人/被上訴人/Defendant/Respondent → defendant
|
||||||
- 保留中英文對照（如有）
|
- 保留中英文對照（如有）
|
||||||
- 某類無則輸出空數組
|
- 某類無則輸出空數組
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
只輸出符合 schema 的 JSON，不要解釋。"""
|
只輸出符合 schema 的 JSON，不要解釋。"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PARTIES_FEWSHOT = """範例輸入：
|
PARTIES_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸入：
|
||||||
BETWEEN
|
BETWEEN
|
||||||
陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN) 上訴人
|
陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN) 上訴人
|
||||||
AND
|
AND
|
||||||
|
|
@ -350,10 +471,44 @@ BETWEEN
|
||||||
範例輸出：
|
範例輸出：
|
||||||
{"plaintiff":["陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)"],"defendant":["香港房屋委員會 (Hong Kong Housing Authority)"]}"""
|
{"plaintiff":["陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)"],"defendant":["香港房屋委員會 (Hong Kong Housing Authority)"]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 英文提示詞
|
||||||
|
PARTIES_SYSTEM_EN = """You are a Hong Kong legal document information extraction assistant.
|
||||||
|
Extract all complete names/organization names of parties from the beginning of the judgment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_parties(client: OllamaClient, context: str) -> dict:
|
Format Recognition:
|
||||||
user = f"{PARTIES_FEWSHOT}\n\n請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取：\n```\n{context[:3000]}\n```"
|
1. English format: BETWEEN ... AND ...
|
||||||
return client.chat_json_with_retry(PARTIES_SYSTEM, user, PARTIES_SCHEMA)
|
2. Chinese format: 申請人 ... 對/訴 答辯人 ...
|
||||||
|
3. Mixed format: Plaintiff ... Defendant ...
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Classification Rules:
|
||||||
|
- Plaintiff/Claimant/Appellant/Applicant/原告/申索人/上訴人/覆核申請人 → plaintiff
|
||||||
|
- Defendant/Respondent/被告/答辯人/被上訴人 → defendant
|
||||||
|
- Preserve bilingual names (if any)
|
||||||
|
- Output empty array if none
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Output only JSON conforming to schema, no explanation."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
PARTIES_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Input:
|
||||||
|
BETWEEN
|
||||||
|
Dr Paul KI Ping-ki 1st Plaintiff
|
||||||
|
Hong Kong Washington Company 2nd Plaintiff
|
||||||
|
AND
|
||||||
|
Next Magazine Publishing Ltd 1st Defendant
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Example Output:
|
||||||
|
{"plaintiff":["Dr Paul KI Ping-ki","Hong Kong Washington Company"],"defendant":["Next Magazine Publishing Ltd"]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def extract_parties(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
|
||||||
|
system = PARTIES_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else PARTIES_SYSTEM_EN
|
||||||
|
fewshot = PARTIES_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else PARTIES_FEWSHOT_EN
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
user = f"{fewshot}\n\n請從以下判決書開頭部分抽取：\n```\n{context[:2000]}\n```"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
user = f"{fewshot}\n\nPlease extract from the following judgment header:\n```\n{context[:2000]}\n```"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user, PARTIES_SCHEMA)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# --- Call 2: 事由 + 標的 ----------------------------------------------------
|
# --- Call 2: 事由 + 標的 ----------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
|
@ -367,41 +522,92 @@ REASON_OBJECT_SCHEMA = {
|
||||||
"required": ["case_reason", "case_object"],
|
"required": ["case_reason", "case_object"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM = """從香港判決書中抽取：
|
# 中文提示詞
|
||||||
|
REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_ZH = """從香港判決書中抽取：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. case_reason（事由）：
|
1. case_reason（事由）：
|
||||||
- 嚴格 ≤100 字，單句
|
- 嚴格 ≤100 字，單句
|
||||||
- 結構：[原告身份] + [針對什麼事件/行為] + [向誰] + [提出什麼請求]
|
- 結構：[原告身份] + [針對什麼事件/行為] + [向誰] + [提出什麼請求]
|
||||||
- 覆核/上訴案件須註明對哪個裁決提出覆核（含日期/案號）
|
- 覆核/上訴案件須註明對哪個裁決提出覆核（含日期/案號）
|
||||||
- 嚴禁包含：判決結果、法庭分析、案發細節
|
- 嚴禁包含：判決結果、法庭分析、案發細節、證據評估
|
||||||
|
- 只描述訴訟的起因和請求，不涉及法庭的判斷
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. case_object（標的物）：
|
2. case_object（標的物）：
|
||||||
- 訴訟請求指向的實體權利或利益
|
- 訴訟請求指向的實體權利或利益
|
||||||
- 例：人身傷害賠償、合同履行、房產所有權、精神困擾賠償
|
- 例：汽車、黃金、珠寶、不動產產權、撫養權、人身傷害賠償、合同履行、房產所有權、精神困擾賠償、居留權
|
||||||
- 合併本質相同的標的
|
- 合併本質相同的標的
|
||||||
- 嚴禁：證據材料、程序性訴求（如"要求法庭裁決"）
|
- 嚴禁：證據材料、程序性訴求（如"要求法庭裁決"）、法律條文名稱
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT = """範例輸出：
|
REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸出：
|
||||||
{"case_reason":"申索人為商場保安員，就被告於2023年7月在商場毆打申索人造成的人身傷害向被告提出損害賠償申索。","case_object":["人身傷害賠償","醫療費用","精神困擾賠償"]}"""
|
{"case_reason":"申索人為商場保安員，就被告於2023年7月在商場毆打申索人造成的人身傷害向被告提出損害賠償申索。","case_object":["人身傷害賠償","醫療費用","精神困擾賠償"]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 英文提示詞
|
||||||
|
REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_EN = """Extract from Hong Kong judgment:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def _reason_object_validator(out: dict) -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
1. case_reason (Cause of Action):
|
||||||
|
- Strictly ≤100 words, single sentence
|
||||||
|
- Structure: [Plaintiff's identity] + [regarding what event/conduct] + [against whom] + [what relief sought]
|
||||||
|
- For judicial review/appeal cases, specify which decision is being challenged (with date/case number)
|
||||||
|
- MUST NOT include: judgment results, court analysis, incident details, evidence assessment
|
||||||
|
- Only describe the cause and relief sought, not the court's determination
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. case_object (Subject Matter):
|
||||||
|
- Tangible rights or interests targeted by the claim
|
||||||
|
- Examples: vehicle, gold, jewelry, property title, custody, personal injury damages, contract performance, property ownership, distress damages, right of abode
|
||||||
|
- Merge essentially identical subjects
|
||||||
|
- MUST NOT include: evidentiary materials, procedural requests (e.g., "seeking court ruling"), names of statutes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Output only JSON."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Output:
|
||||||
|
{"case_reason":"Plaintiff, a shopping mall security guard, claims damages from defendant for personal injuries caused by defendant's assault at the mall in July 2023.","case_object":["personal injury damages","medical expenses","distress damages"]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def _reason_object_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
||||||
r = out.get("case_reason", "")
|
r = out.get("case_reason", "")
|
||||||
if len(r) > 100:
|
if len(r) > 100:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, f"case_reason 共 {len(r)} 字，超過 100 字上限，請壓縮到 80 字以內。"
|
return False, f"case_reason 共 {len(r)} 字，超過 100 字上限，請壓縮到 80 字以內。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, f"case_reason has {len(r)} characters, exceeds 100 limit, please compress to within 80."
|
||||||
if not out.get("case_object"):
|
if not out.get("case_object"):
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, "case_object 不能為空。"
|
return False, "case_object 不能為空。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, "case_object cannot be empty."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 檢查是否包含判決結果性詞彙（嚴禁）
|
||||||
|
RESULT_KEYWORDS = [
|
||||||
|
"駁回", "拒絕", "勝訴", "敗訴", "維持", "撤銷", "發還",
|
||||||
|
"判給", "獲判", "判處", "部分勝訴",
|
||||||
|
"dismissed", "allowed", "granted", "refused", "upheld", "quashed",
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
for keyword in RESULT_KEYWORDS:
|
||||||
|
if keyword in r:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
return False, f"case_reason 不應包含判決結果詞彙「{keyword}」，請只描述訴訟起因和請求。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, f"case_reason should not contain judgment result term '{keyword}', describe only cause and relief sought."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return True, ""
|
return True, ""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_reason_object(client: OllamaClient, context: str) -> dict:
|
def extract_reason_object(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
|
||||||
user = (f"{REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT}\n\n"
|
system = REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_EN
|
||||||
|
fewshot = REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_EN
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取：\n```\n{context[:6000]}\n```")
|
f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取：\n```\n{context[:6000]}\n```")
|
||||||
out = client.chat_json_with_retry(REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM, user,
|
else:
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
|
f"Please extract from the following segments (keyword-based retrieval):\n```\n{context[:6000]}\n```")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
out = client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
|
||||||
REASON_OBJECT_SCHEMA,
|
REASON_OBJECT_SCHEMA,
|
||||||
validator=_reason_object_validator)
|
validator=lambda x: _reason_object_validator(x, lang))
|
||||||
if len(out["case_reason"]) > 100:
|
if len(out["case_reason"]) > 100:
|
||||||
out["case_reason"] = out["case_reason"][:100]
|
out["case_reason"] = out["case_reason"][:100]
|
||||||
return out
|
return out
|
||||||
|
|
@ -427,45 +633,97 @@ JUDGMENT_RESULT_SCHEMA = {
|
||||||
"required": ["judgment_result"],
|
"required": ["judgment_result"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM = """從香港判決書命令/裁定部分抽取所有判決結果。
|
# 中文提示詞
|
||||||
|
JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_ZH = """從香港判決書尾部的命令/裁定部分抽取所有判決結果。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
重要提示：
|
||||||
|
- 判決結果通常在判決書的最後部分
|
||||||
|
- 常見標記：JUDGMENT, ORDER, CONCLUSION, DISPOSITION, 判決, 命令, 裁定, 頒令
|
||||||
|
- 可能包含：勝訴/敗訴、具體金額、訟費安排、上訴結果
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
拆分原則：
|
拆分原則：
|
||||||
- 多項請求 → 分條
|
- 多項請求 → 分條
|
||||||
- "責任判定" 與 "損失/金額計算" 兩個層面 → 必須分條
|
- "責任判定" 與 "損失/金額計算" 兩個層面 → 必須分條
|
||||||
- 每條 charge 必須以 "(責任問題)" 或 "(損失範圍)" 結尾標註層次
|
- 每條 charge 必須以 "(責任問題)" 或 "(損失範圍)" 結尾標註層次
|
||||||
- result 必須包含：
|
- result 必須包含：
|
||||||
a) 明確結果（勝訴/敗訴/部分勝訴/維持/撤銷/駁回等）
|
a) 明確結果（勝訴/敗訴/部分勝訴/維持/撤銷/駁回/發還等）
|
||||||
b) 2-3 個關鍵法庭理由
|
b) 2-3 個關鍵法庭理由（如有）
|
||||||
c) 具體金額、利率或命令內容（如有）
|
c) 具體金額、利率或命令內容（如有）
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT = """範例輸出：
|
JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸出：
|
||||||
{"judgment_result":[
|
{"judgment_result":[
|
||||||
{"charge":"申索人就毆打事件的人身傷害索償 (責任問題)","result":"勝訴。法庭接納申索人證供可信，閉路電視顯示被告先動手，被告亦承認部分情節。"},
|
{"charge":"申索人就毆打事件的人身傷害索償 (責任問題)","result":"勝訴。法庭接納申索人證供可信，閉路電視顯示被告先動手，被告亦承認部分情節。"},
|
||||||
{"charge":"醫療費及精神困擾賠償金額 (損失範圍)","result":"部分勝訴。判給醫療費HK$8,500及一般損害賠償HK$20,000，合共HK$28,500，連同利息及訟費。"}
|
{"charge":"醫療費及精神困擾賠償金額 (損失範圍)","result":"部分勝訴。判給醫療費HK$8,500及一般損害賠償HK$20,000，合共HK$28,500，連同利息及訟費。"}
|
||||||
]}"""
|
]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 英文提示詞
|
||||||
|
JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_EN = """Extract all judgment results from the order/disposition section at the end of Hong Kong judgment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def _judgment_validator(out: dict) -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
Important Notes:
|
||||||
|
- Judgment results are usually at the end of the judgment
|
||||||
|
- Common markers: JUDGMENT, ORDER, CONCLUSION, DISPOSITION, 判決, 命令, 裁定, 頒令
|
||||||
|
- May include: success/dismissal, specific amounts, costs arrangements, appeal results
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Splitting Principles:
|
||||||
|
- Multiple claims → separate items
|
||||||
|
- "Liability determination" vs "Quantum/damages assessment" → must be separate items
|
||||||
|
- Each charge must end with "(liability issue)" or "(quantum issue)" to mark the level
|
||||||
|
- result must include:
|
||||||
|
a) Clear outcome (allowed/dismissed/partially allowed/upheld/quashed/remitted, etc.)
|
||||||
|
b) 2-3 key court reasons (if any)
|
||||||
|
c) Specific amounts, interest rates or order details (if any)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Output only JSON."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Output:
|
||||||
|
{"judgment_result":[
|
||||||
|
{"charge":"Plaintiff's claim for personal injury from assault (liability issue)","result":"Allowed. Court accepted plaintiff's testimony as credible, CCTV showed defendant struck first, defendant also admitted parts of the incident."},
|
||||||
|
{"charge":"Medical expenses and distress damages quantum (quantum issue)","result":"Partially allowed. Awarded medical expenses HK$8,500 and general damages HK$20,000, totaling HK$28,500, with interest and costs."}
|
||||||
|
]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def _judgment_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
||||||
items = out.get("judgment_result", [])
|
items = out.get("judgment_result", [])
|
||||||
if not items:
|
if not items:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, "judgment_result 不能為空。"
|
return False, "judgment_result 不能為空。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, "judgment_result cannot be empty."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
bad = [i for i in items
|
bad = [i for i in items
|
||||||
if "責任問題" not in i.get("charge", "")
|
if "責任問題" not in i.get("charge", "")
|
||||||
and "損失範圍" not in i.get("charge", "")]
|
and "損失範圍" not in i.get("charge", "")]
|
||||||
if bad:
|
if bad:
|
||||||
return False, (f"有 {len(bad)} 條 charge 未標註層次。"
|
return False, (f"有 {len(bad)} 條 charge 未標註層次。"
|
||||||
f"每條 charge 必須以 '(責任問題)' 或 '(損失範圍)' 結尾。")
|
f"每條 charge 必須以 '(責任問題)' 或 '(損失範圍)' 結尾。")
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
bad = [i for i in items
|
||||||
|
if "liability issue" not in i.get("charge", "").lower()
|
||||||
|
and "quantum issue" not in i.get("charge", "").lower()]
|
||||||
|
if bad:
|
||||||
|
return False, (f"{len(bad)} charge items lack level annotation. "
|
||||||
|
f"Each charge must end with '(liability issue)' or '(quantum issue)'.")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return True, ""
|
return True, ""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_judgment_result(client: OllamaClient, context: str) -> dict:
|
def extract_judgment_result(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
|
||||||
user = (f"{JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT}\n\n"
|
system = JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_EN
|
||||||
f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取：\n```\n{context[:6500]}\n```")
|
fewshot = JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_EN
|
||||||
return client.chat_json_with_retry(JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM, user,
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
|
f"請從以下判決書尾部（命令/裁定部分）抽取：\n```\n{context[-4000:]}\n```")
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
|
f"Please extract from the following judgment ending (order/disposition section):\n```\n{context[-4000:]}\n```")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
|
||||||
JUDGMENT_RESULT_SCHEMA,
|
JUDGMENT_RESULT_SCHEMA,
|
||||||
validator=_judgment_validator)
|
validator=lambda x: _judgment_validator(x, lang))
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# --- Call 4: 涉及實體 -------------------------------------------------------
|
# --- Call 4: 涉及實體 -------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
|
@ -488,49 +746,100 @@ ENTITIES_SCHEMA = {
|
||||||
"required": ["involved_entities"],
|
"required": ["involved_entities"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
ENTITIES_SYSTEM = """從香港判決書中抽取所有相關實體（自然人/法人/組織/機構）。
|
# 中文提示詞
|
||||||
|
ENTITIES_SYSTEM_ZH = """從香港判決書中抽取所有相關實體（自然人/法人/組織/機構）。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
必須包含：
|
必須包含：
|
||||||
- 主審法官 / 審裁官
|
- 主審法官 / 審裁官 / 裁判官（通常在判決書開頭或結尾署名）
|
||||||
- 雙方代表律師、大律師
|
- 雙方代表律師、大律師（通常在判決書結尾的 Representation 部分）
|
||||||
- 判決中引用的先例所提及的法官
|
- 判決中引用的先例所提及的法官
|
||||||
reason 須寫明：在XX案[案號]中擔任XX職位，闡述XX法律原則
|
reason 須寫明：在XX案[案號]中擔任XX職位，闡述XX法律原則
|
||||||
- 涉案的政府部門、公司、機構
|
- 涉案的政府部門、公司、機構（如：入境事務處處長、律政司司長）
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
嚴禁包含：
|
嚴禁包含：
|
||||||
- 法案/條例名（如《侵權條例》、Cap.xxx）
|
- 法案/條例名（如《侵權條例》、Cap.xxx、《基本法》）
|
||||||
- 純案例名稱（如 Donoghue v Stevenson）
|
- 純案例名稱（如 Donoghue v Stevenson）
|
||||||
- 文獻、期刊名
|
- 文獻、期刊名
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
只輸出 JSON。"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
ENTITIES_FEWSHOT = """範例輸出：
|
ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸出：
|
||||||
{"involved_entities":[
|
{"involved_entities":[
|
||||||
{"entity_name":"林希維審裁官","reason":"本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。"},
|
{"entity_name":"林希維審裁官","reason":"本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。"},
|
||||||
{"entity_name":"終審法院常任法官李義","reason":"在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23 中擔任主筆法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第34段引用其判詞。"},
|
{"entity_name":"終審法院常任法官李義","reason":"在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23 中擔任主筆法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第34段引用其判詞。"},
|
||||||
{"entity_name":"康樂文化事務署","reason":"涉案場所通州街公園的管理機構。"}
|
{"entity_name":"康樂文化事務署","reason":"涉案場所通州街公園的管理機構。"}
|
||||||
]}"""
|
]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 英文提示詞
|
||||||
|
ENTITIES_SYSTEM_EN = """Extract all relevant entities (natural persons/legal persons/organizations/institutions) from Hong Kong judgment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def _entities_validator(out: dict) -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
Must include:
|
||||||
|
- Presiding judge/adjudicator/magistrate (usually signed at beginning or end of judgment)
|
||||||
|
- Counsel/barristers representing both parties (usually in Representation section at end)
|
||||||
|
- Judges mentioned in cited precedents
|
||||||
|
reason must specify: served as XX position in XX case [case number], articulated XX legal principle
|
||||||
|
- Government departments, companies, institutions involved (e.g., Director of Immigration, Secretary for Justice)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
MUST NOT include:
|
||||||
|
- Statute/ordinance names (e.g., Tort Ordinance, Cap.xxx, Basic Law)
|
||||||
|
- Pure case names (e.g., Donoghue v Stevenson)
|
||||||
|
- Literature, journal names
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Output only JSON."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Output:
|
||||||
|
{"involved_entities":[
|
||||||
|
{"entity_name":"Hon Leong JA","reason":"Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication."},
|
||||||
|
{"entity_name":"Chief Justice Li","reason":"Served as lead judge in Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23, articulated burden of proof principles, cited in paragraph 34 of this judgment."},
|
||||||
|
{"entity_name":"Leisure and Cultural Services Department","reason":"Management authority of Tung Chau Street Park, the incident location."}
|
||||||
|
]}"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def _entities_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
||||||
ents = out.get("involved_entities", [])
|
ents = out.get("involved_entities", [])
|
||||||
if not ents:
|
if not ents:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, "involved_entities 不能為空，至少要有主審法官。"
|
return False, "involved_entities 不能為空，至少要有主審法官。"
|
||||||
blacklist = ["條例", "Cap.", "法案"]
|
else:
|
||||||
bad = [e["entity_name"] for e in ents
|
return False, "involved_entities cannot be empty, must include at least the presiding judge."
|
||||||
if any(k in e.get("entity_name", "") for k in blacklist)]
|
|
||||||
|
# 檢查黑名單（條例、法案、案例名稱）
|
||||||
|
bad = []
|
||||||
|
for e in ents:
|
||||||
|
name = e.get("entity_name", "")
|
||||||
|
# 檢查是否包含黑名單關鍵詞
|
||||||
|
if any(k in name for k in ENTITY_NAME_BLACKLIST):
|
||||||
|
bad.append(name)
|
||||||
|
# 檢查是否為案例名稱格式（包含 v 或 訴）
|
||||||
|
if (" v " in name or " v. " in name or " 訴 " in name or
|
||||||
|
" vs " in name or " vs. " in name):
|
||||||
|
bad.append(name)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if bad:
|
if bad:
|
||||||
return False, f"以下實體疑為條例/法案，應移除：{bad}"
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
return False, f"以下實體疑為條例/法案/案例名稱，應移除：{bad[:3]}"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, f"Following entities appear to be statutes/acts/case names, should be removed: {bad[:3]}"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return True, ""
|
return True, ""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_entities(client: OllamaClient, context: str) -> dict:
|
def extract_entities(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
|
||||||
user = (f"{ENTITIES_FEWSHOT}\n\n"
|
system = ENTITIES_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else ENTITIES_SYSTEM_EN
|
||||||
|
fewshot = ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_EN
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取所有涉及實體：\n"
|
f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取所有涉及實體：\n"
|
||||||
f"```\n{context[:6500]}\n```")
|
f"```\n{context[:6500]}\n```")
|
||||||
return client.chat_json_with_retry(ENTITIES_SYSTEM, user,
|
else:
|
||||||
|
user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
|
||||||
|
f"Please extract all involved entities from the following segments (keyword-based retrieval):\n"
|
||||||
|
f"```\n{context[:6500]}\n```")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
|
||||||
ENTITIES_SCHEMA,
|
ENTITIES_SCHEMA,
|
||||||
validator=_entities_validator)
|
validator=lambda x: _entities_validator(x, lang))
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# --- Call 5: 判決總結（基於已抽取結果 + 分析段，不從原文重生） -----------
|
# --- Call 5: 判決總結（基於已抽取結果 + 分析段，不從原文重生） -----------
|
||||||
|
|
@ -543,7 +852,8 @@ SUMMARY_SCHEMA = {
|
||||||
"required": ["judgment_summary"],
|
"required": ["judgment_summary"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
SUMMARY_SYSTEM = """根據已抽取的結構化字段 + 法庭分析段，撰寫判決總結。
|
# 中文提示詞
|
||||||
|
SUMMARY_SYSTEM_ZH = """根據已抽取的結構化字段 + 法庭分析段，撰寫判決總結。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
四要素結構（必須全部涵蓋，連貫成單段）：
|
四要素結構（必須全部涵蓋，連貫成單段）：
|
||||||
(1) 案件背景：1-2 句交代起因與當事人關係
|
(1) 案件背景：1-2 句交代起因與當事人關係
|
||||||
|
|
@ -556,18 +866,41 @@ SUMMARY_SYSTEM = """根據已抽取的結構化字段 + 法庭分析段，撰寫
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
嚴格 ≤300 字。只輸出 JSON。"""
|
嚴格 ≤300 字。只輸出 JSON。"""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# 英文提示詞
|
||||||
|
SUMMARY_SYSTEM_EN = """Based on extracted structured fields + court analysis section, write judgment summary.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def _summary_validator(out: dict) -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
Four-element structure (must cover all, in coherent single paragraph):
|
||||||
|
(1) Case background: 1-2 sentences on cause and parties' relationship
|
||||||
|
(2) Core issues in dispute
|
||||||
|
(3) Court's legal analysis and reasoning (core focus):
|
||||||
|
- How was evidence assessed?
|
||||||
|
- Logic for accepting/rejecting claims?
|
||||||
|
- What key laws or precedents were cited?
|
||||||
|
(4) Final judgment and orders
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Strictly ≤300 words. Output only JSON."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
def _summary_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
|
||||||
s = out.get("judgment_summary", "")
|
s = out.get("judgment_summary", "")
|
||||||
if len(s) > 300:
|
if len(s) > 300:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, f"summary 共 {len(s)} 字，超過 300 字上限，請壓縮。"
|
return False, f"summary 共 {len(s)} 字，超過 300 字上限，請壓縮。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, f"summary has {len(s)} characters, exceeds 300 limit, please compress."
|
||||||
if len(s) < 80:
|
if len(s) < 80:
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
return False, "summary 過短，請完整覆蓋四要素。"
|
return False, "summary 過短，請完整覆蓋四要素。"
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
return False, "summary too short, please cover all four elements."
|
||||||
return True, ""
|
return True, ""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def extract_summary(client: OllamaClient,
|
def extract_summary(client: OllamaClient,
|
||||||
prior: dict, analysis: str) -> dict:
|
prior: dict, analysis: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
|
||||||
|
system = SUMMARY_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else SUMMARY_SYSTEM_EN
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if lang == 'zh':
|
||||||
user = f"""已抽取的字段：
|
user = f"""已抽取的字段：
|
||||||
```json
|
```json
|
||||||
{json.dumps(prior, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)}
|
{json.dumps(prior, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -579,8 +912,21 @@ def extract_summary(client: OllamaClient,
|
||||||
```
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
請按四要素撰寫 ≤300 字的 judgment_summary。"""
|
請按四要素撰寫 ≤300 字的 judgment_summary。"""
|
||||||
out = client.chat_json_with_retry(SUMMARY_SYSTEM, user, SUMMARY_SCHEMA,
|
else:
|
||||||
validator=_summary_validator)
|
user = f"""Extracted fields:
|
||||||
|
```json
|
||||||
|
{json.dumps(prior, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)}
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Court analysis excerpt:
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
{analysis[:3500]}
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Please write judgment_summary ≤300 words covering four elements."""
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
out = client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user, SUMMARY_SCHEMA,
|
||||||
|
validator=lambda x: _summary_validator(x, lang))
|
||||||
if len(out["judgment_summary"]) > 300:
|
if len(out["judgment_summary"]) > 300:
|
||||||
out["judgment_summary"] = out["judgment_summary"][:300]
|
out["judgment_summary"] = out["judgment_summary"][:300]
|
||||||
return out
|
return out
|
||||||
|
|
@ -594,8 +940,13 @@ LOCATION_BLACKLIST = [
|
||||||
"法院", "法庭", "審裁處", "公園", "大廈", "大樓", "商場",
|
"法院", "法庭", "審裁處", "公園", "大廈", "大樓", "商場",
|
||||||
"街", "道路", "村", "中心", "醫院", "酒店", "車站",
|
"街", "道路", "村", "中心", "醫院", "酒店", "車站",
|
||||||
]
|
]
|
||||||
ENTITY_NAME_BLACKLIST = ["條例", "Cap.", "法案", "案例彙編", "Reports",
|
ENTITY_NAME_BLACKLIST = [
|
||||||
"期刊", "Journal"]
|
"條例", "Cap.", "法案", "案例彙編", "Reports",
|
||||||
|
"期刊", "Journal",
|
||||||
|
# 案例名稱標記
|
||||||
|
" v ", " v. ", " 訴 ", " vs ", " vs. ",
|
||||||
|
"HKCFAR", "HKCFA", "HKCA", "HKCFI", # 避免將案例引用誤認為實體
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
|
def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
|
||||||
|
|
@ -653,7 +1004,11 @@ def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
|
||||||
def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
|
def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
|
||||||
log = lambda m: print(m, file=sys.stderr)
|
log = lambda m: print(m, file=sys.stderr)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[1/6] 預處理 + 關鍵詞召回...")
|
log("[0/7] 檢測語言...")
|
||||||
|
lang = detect_language(text)
|
||||||
|
log(f" 檢測到語言：{'中文' if lang == 'zh' else '英文'} (lang={lang})")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
log("[1/7] 預處理 + 關鍵詞召回...")
|
||||||
text = clean_text(text)
|
text = clean_text(text)
|
||||||
meta = extract_metadata_by_rule(text)
|
meta = extract_metadata_by_rule(text)
|
||||||
ctx = gather_all(text)
|
ctx = gather_all(text)
|
||||||
|
|
@ -662,32 +1017,33 @@ def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
|
||||||
log(f" 召回片段：")
|
log(f" 召回片段：")
|
||||||
for g in ("parties", "reason_object", "judgment_result",
|
for g in ("parties", "reason_object", "judgment_result",
|
||||||
"entities", "analysis"):
|
"entities", "analysis"):
|
||||||
log(f" {g:16s} len={len(ctx[g]):5d} hits={ctx[f'_{g}_hits']}")
|
hits_info = f"hits={ctx[f'_{g}_hits']}" if ctx[f'_{g}_hits'] != "0" else "直接截取"
|
||||||
|
log(f" {g:16s} len={len(ctx[g]):5d} {hits_info}")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
client = OllamaClient(model=model)
|
client = OllamaClient(model=model)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[2/6] 抽取當事人...")
|
log("[2/7] 抽取當事人...")
|
||||||
parties = extract_parties(client, ctx["parties"])
|
parties = extract_parties(client, ctx["parties"], lang)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[3/6] 抽取事由與標的...")
|
log("[3/7] 抽取事由與標的...")
|
||||||
reason_obj = extract_reason_object(client, ctx["reason_object"])
|
reason_obj = extract_reason_object(client, ctx["reason_object"], lang)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[4/6] 抽取判決結果...")
|
log("[4/7] 抽取判決結果...")
|
||||||
judgment = extract_judgment_result(client, ctx["judgment_result"])
|
judgment = extract_judgment_result(client, ctx["judgment_result"], lang)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[5/6] 抽取涉及實體...")
|
log("[5/7] 抽取涉及實體...")
|
||||||
# 實體抽取上下文：當事人片段（含律師名）+ 引用片段
|
# 實體抽取上下文：當事人片段（含律師名）+ 引用片段
|
||||||
entities_ctx = (ctx["parties"][:2500] + "\n\n[…]\n\n"
|
entities_ctx = (ctx["parties"][:2500] + "\n\n[…]\n\n"
|
||||||
+ ctx["entities"])[:6500]
|
+ ctx["entities"])[:6500]
|
||||||
entities = extract_entities(client, entities_ctx)
|
entities = extract_entities(client, entities_ctx, lang)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
interim_for_summary = {
|
interim_for_summary = {
|
||||||
**parties, **reason_obj, **judgment, **entities,
|
**parties, **reason_obj, **judgment, **entities,
|
||||||
"jurisdiction_name": meta["jurisdiction_name"],
|
"jurisdiction_name": meta["jurisdiction_name"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
log("[6/6] 撰寫判決總結...")
|
log("[6/7] 撰寫判決總結...")
|
||||||
summary = extract_summary(client, interim_for_summary, ctx["analysis"])
|
summary = extract_summary(client, interim_for_summary, ctx["analysis"], lang)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
final = {
|
final = {
|
||||||
"plaintiff": parties["plaintiff"],
|
"plaintiff": parties["plaintiff"],
|
||||||
|
|
@ -702,6 +1058,7 @@ def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
|
||||||
"involved_entities": entities["involved_entities"],
|
"involved_entities": entities["involved_entities"],
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
log("[7/7] 校驗與後處理...")
|
||||||
final, warnings = validate_and_fix(final)
|
final, warnings = validate_and_fix(final)
|
||||||
for w in warnings:
|
for w in warnings:
|
||||||
log(f" ⚠️ {w}")
|
log(f" ⚠️ {w}")
|
||||||
|
|
@ -749,14 +1106,25 @@ def to_yaml(result: dict) -> str:
|
||||||
def main() -> None:
|
def main() -> None:
|
||||||
ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(
|
ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(
|
||||||
description="香港判決書結構化抽取（本地 Ollama 版）")
|
description="香港判決書結構化抽取（本地 Ollama 版）")
|
||||||
ap.add_argument("input", help="判決書文本路徑（.txt）")
|
ap.add_argument("input", help="判決書文本路徑（.txt 或 .json）")
|
||||||
ap.add_argument("--model", default=DEFAULT_MODEL, help="Ollama 模型名")
|
ap.add_argument("--model", default=DEFAULT_MODEL, help="Ollama 模型名")
|
||||||
ap.add_argument("--out", default=None, help="輸出 YAML 路徑（默認 stdout）")
|
ap.add_argument("--out", default=None, help="輸出 YAML 路徑（默認 stdout）")
|
||||||
ap.add_argument("--debug-dump", default=None,
|
ap.add_argument("--debug-dump", default=None,
|
||||||
help="額外輸出原始 JSON 結果到該路徑（便於 diff）")
|
help="額外輸出原始 JSON 結果到該路徑（便於 diff）")
|
||||||
args = ap.parse_args()
|
args = ap.parse_args()
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
text = Path(args.input).read_text(encoding="utf-8")
|
# 支持从 .json 文件的 content 字段读取
|
||||||
|
input_path = Path(args.input)
|
||||||
|
if input_path.suffix.lower() == '.json':
|
||||||
|
import json
|
||||||
|
data = json.loads(input_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
|
||||||
|
text = data.get("content", "")
|
||||||
|
if not text:
|
||||||
|
print("錯誤：JSON 文件中沒有 'content' 字段", file=sys.stderr)
|
||||||
|
sys.exit(1)
|
||||||
|
else:
|
||||||
|
text = input_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
result = run_pipeline(text, args.model)
|
result = run_pipeline(text, args.model)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if args.debug_dump:
|
if args.debug_dump:
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 林育麟
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人就其不符合永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女獲得居留權的條件向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 居留權
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申請人就居留權索償 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回上訴。根據終審法院的判決及全國人民代表大會常務委員會的解釋，申請人在本案中不符合取得居留權的條件。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 不作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為林育麟就其不符合永久性居民在香港以外所生中國籍子女獲得居留權的條件向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴，爭議焦點在於申請人是否符合取得居留權的條件。法庭法律分析指出，根據終審法院判決及全國人民代表大會常務委員會解釋，申請人在本案中不符合取得居留權的條件。法庭評估證據並引用了吳嘉玲、陳錦雅案及人大常委會解釋，最終駁回上訴，裁定申請人無資格獲得居留權，不作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林育麟
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 胡國興
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張澤祐
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何展鵬
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人律師代表
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 李杏彬
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人就香港以外出生的中國籍子女是否符合獲頒濟助條件向法庭提出上訴，認為不符合任何一項條件。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 居留權
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申請人就居留權索償 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回上訴。根據終審法院的判決及全國人民代表大會常務委員會的解釋，申請人不符合取得居留權的條件。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 不作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為李杏彬上訴入境事務處處長關乎香港以外出生中國籍子女居留權之案件。核心爭議焦點在於李杏彬之子是否符合《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項所列條件，以獲頒居留權。法庭法律分析指出，《吳嘉玲案》及《陳錦雅案》終審法院裁決已被人大常委會解釋取代，根據《吳小彤案》判決及相關解釋，李杏彬之子需符合三項條件之一方能申請居留權：1）出生時父母中至少一人已為永久性居民；2）曾收到特定法律文件；3）有政府寬免政策受惠者身份。由於李杏彬之子不符合上述任何一項條件，法庭駁回上訴並不作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李杏彬
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高等法院首席法官梁紹中
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高等法院上訴法庭法官胡國興
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳嘉玲及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在吳嘉玲案中擔任答辯人職位。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳錦雅及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在陳錦雅案中擔任答辯人職位。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳小彤及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在吳小彤案中擔任答辯人職位。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司黃惠沖高級政府律師及何展鵬政府律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表答辯人出庭。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 蔡輝揚
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人就其不符合永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女獲得居留權的條件向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 居留權
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 上訴無理據支持 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回上訴，不作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
蔡輝揚就其不符合永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女獲得居留權的條件向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴，核心爭議焦點為是否符合《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項所述條件。法庭法律分析指出，《吳嘉玲及其他人士對入境事務處處長》和《陳錦雅及其他人士對入境事務處處長》兩案終審法院裁決已被人大常委會解釋取代，根據《吳小彤及其他人士對入境事務處處長》一案的判決及人大常委會解釋，蔡輝揚的情況不符合任何獲居留權條件。最終，上訴法庭駁回了蔡輝揚的上訴，並未作出訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 蔡輝揚
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 胡國興
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院上訴法庭法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 朱芬齡
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院原訟法庭法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳嘉玲及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在吳嘉玲案中，終審法院裁定《基本法》第24條第2款第(3)項並不受第22條第4款規限。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳錦雅及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在陳錦雅案中，終審法院裁定永久性居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女享有居留權。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳小彤及其他人士對入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在吳小彤案中，終審法院闡述和解釋了吳嘉玲和陳錦雅兩案及人大常委會解釋的關係和效果。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何展鵬政府律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人由律政司何展鵬政府律師代表。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 許樹榮（hui Shu WING）
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人（許樹榮）就2012年1月13日駕駛公共巴士撞死一名89歲老婦的案件，對區域法院法官裁定其罪名成立及判刑3年2個月不服，提出上訴。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 減輕判刑
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 駕駛引致他人死亡 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴得直。本庭認為上訴人的罪責較其他類似案例為輕，因此將刑期由3年2個月減為2年6個月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 駕駛引致他人死亡 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 無需支付额外赔偿金。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及許樹榮駕駛公共巴士撞死一名89歲老婦，區域法院法官裁定其罪名成立並判刑3年2個月，上訴人提出減輕判刑的上訴。高等法院上訴法庭認為，考慮到上訴人在30多年駕駛生涯中無違規紀錄、對事件表示悔疚及道歉等因素，原審法官的判刑過重。法庭引用了相關案例進行比較分析，最終裁定上訴得直，將刑期由3年2個月減為2年6個月。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 楊振權
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院上訴法庭副庭長，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張慧玲
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院原訟法庭法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 郭啟安
|
||||||
|
reason: 區域法院法官，為原審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 許樹榮 (hui Shu WING)
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，涉案人士。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司高級檢控官趙偉天
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人代表律政司出庭，為政府部門代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 法律援助署委派大律師伍家聰
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人代表律師，為私人律師。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人就其於2019年9月10日被判兩年監禁的判刑提出上訴，並成功獲減刑，現向高等法院申請訟費。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 訟費
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費申請 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴人獲得訟費，包括就判刑上訴許可申請尋求法律意見的費用、2020年5月20日就判刑部份提出的上訴許可申請聆訊、2020年5月20日的等候上訴保釋申請聆訊及2020年7月15日的判刑上訴聆訊。但大律師費用僅限於一名大律師代表，若雙方未能就訟費金額達成協議，則交由聆案官處理。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 需要兩名大律師處理本案 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 否認上訴人的請求，認為本案並沒有必要由兩位大律師處理。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人盧耀國就其於2019年9月10日被判兩年監禁的判刑提出上訴，並成功獲減刑。法庭分析指出，上訴人的訟費申請包括尋求法律意見費用、上訴許可聆訊及判刑上訴聆訊等項目均獲批准，但認為本案並無必要由兩名大律師處理。法庭引用了類似案例如香港特別行政區對周禮梅案（[2018]
|
||||||
|
HKCA 957）和香港特別行政區對盧耀國案（[2020] HKCA 581），認為本案理據簡單，不需兩位大律師。最終裁決上訴人獲得訟費，但大律師費用僅限於一名大律師代表，若雙方未能達成協議則交由聆案官處理。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭偉昌
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院上訴法庭法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭寶琴
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審高等法院原訟法庭法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林佩琼律師行轉聘李紹強資深大律師及劉日雄大律師代表上訴人
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人的代理律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 潘藹蓮
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人的代理律師，由律政司高級檢控官代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周禮梅
|
||||||
|
reason: 在[2018]HKCA 957案中擔任被告，類似案例提及。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃崇厚
|
||||||
|
reason: 高等法院原訟法庭法官，在2020年5月20日審理上訴許可申請。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 葉佐文
|
||||||
|
reason: 區域法院法官，於2019年9月10日作出判決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 盧耀國
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案被告及上訴人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司高級檢控官潘藹蓮代表答辯人
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人的代理律師，由律政司高級檢控官代表。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 麥光耀（MAK Kwong-yiu）
|
||||||
|
- 陳麗兒（CHAN Lai-yee）
|
||||||
|
- 黃淑安（WONG Shuk-on）
|
||||||
|
- 李易明（LEE Yick-ming）
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
四名申請人不服區域法院裁定其串謀詐騙罪成，提出上訴許可申請。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 串謀詐騙罪
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 各申請人的定罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴得直，撤銷各人的定罪及擱置判刑。法庭認為控方未能解決關鍵問題，包括關連交易的性質和上市規則的適用性。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 各申請人是否存在欺詐意圖 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 不適用。由於主要責任問題已解決，此問題不再討論。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及四名申請人不服區域法院裁定其串謀詐騙罪成，提出上訴許可申請。核心爭議焦點在於控方是否能證明鼎成證券有限公司（「鼎成」）僅為幌子，而康宏証券投資服務有限公司（「CIS」）才是實際配售代理。法庭認為，原審法官未能解決關鍵問題，包括關連交易的性質和上市規則的適用性。法庭指出，控方未能證明鼎成是虛假交易或應被視作1019的關連人士，因此撤銷申請人的定罪及擱置判刑。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭偉昌
|
||||||
|
reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官之一
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 潘敏琦
|
||||||
|
reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官之一
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭寶琴
|
||||||
|
reason: 高等法院上訴法庭法官之一，頒發上訴法庭判案書
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 王興偉
|
||||||
|
reason: 區域法院暫委法官，原審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 麥光耀（MAK Kwong-yiu）
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳麗兒（CHAN Lai-yee）
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃淑安（WONG Shuk-on）
|
||||||
|
reason: 第三申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李易明（LEE Yick-ming）
|
||||||
|
reason: 第四申請人
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 康宏理財控股有限公司（後改名康宏金融控股有限公司）
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司，被詐騙對象之一
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鼎成證券有限公司（「鼎成」）
|
||||||
|
reason: 配售代理
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 康宏証券投資服務有限公司（「CIS」）
|
||||||
|
reason: 分配售代理
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港聯合交易所有限公司（「聯交所」）
|
||||||
|
reason: 被詐騙對象之一
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 王利民
|
||||||
|
reason: 1019的另外兩位執行董事之一，间接持有CIS股權
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮雪心
|
||||||
|
reason: 1019的另外兩位執行董事之一，间接持有CIS股權
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
原告（吳嘉玲小姐、吳丹丹小姐及徐權能先生）聲稱根據《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別擁有永久性居民身分，但入境處處長未予承認。原告不服，提出司法覆核要求法院宣告其享有居留權並推翻入境處處長的決定。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 居留權
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣告《入境條例及規例》部分無效 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭宣告第2A（1）條、第2AA（1）（a）條、第53D（3）（a）條及附表1居留權證明書表格12第二句為無效，並從該條例或規例中刪除；撤銷入境處處長的相關決定。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣告“第3號條例”第1（2）條無效 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭宣告“第3號條例”第1（2）條為無效，並從該條例中刪除。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費評定 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 不作判令。各申請人的訟費按《法律援助條例及規例》評定。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣告吳嘉玲小姐及吳丹丹小姐為香港特別行政區永久性居民 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭宣告兩名申請人自1997年7月1日開始便擁有居留權。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 撤銷入境處處長的相關決定 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭撤銷入境處處長約在1997年7月4日扣留申請人的決定，約在1997年7月4日規定申請人須受擔保約束的決定，及約在1997年8月7日拒絕讓申請人入境的決定。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣告徐權能先生為香港特別行政區永久性居民 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭宣告申請人自1997年7月1日開始便擁有居留權。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 撤銷入境處處長的相關決定 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭撤銷入境處處長約在1997年7月15日有關申請人不能享有《基本法》第24（3）條所指的居港權的決定，約在1997年7月15日羈留扣押申請人的決定，及約在1997年7月19日規定申請人須受擔保約束的決定。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣告張麗華小姐為香港特別行政區永久性居民 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭宣告申請人自1997年7月1日開始便擁有居留權。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及原告（吳嘉玲小姐、吳丹丹小姐及徐權能先生）聲稱根據《基本法》享有永久性居民身分，但入境處未予承認而提出司法覆核。法庭認為，《入境條例》部分條文無效，並宣告原告為香港特別行政區永久性居民。法院基於《基本法》第19（2）條及“國際人權公約”第15（1）條，裁定相關追溯條文違憲，撤銷入境處處長的相關決定。最終，法庭勝訴原告，宣告其居留權並推翻入境處處長的決定。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官烈顯倫
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官沈澄
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案政府部門，為答辯人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳嘉玲
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人之一，由父親及起訴監護人代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳丹丹
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人之一，由父親及起訴監護人代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 徐權能
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張麗華
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人之一，由父親及起訴監護人代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳錫年
|
||||||
|
reason: 吳嘉玲和吳丹丹的父親及起訴監護人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張妙祥
|
||||||
|
reason: 張麗華的父亲及起訴监护人。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 香港電話有限公司 (PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 電訊管理局
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
電訊盈科就上訴委員會不准臨時暫緩執行局長指示提出上訴，向高等法院及上訴法庭提出法律問題。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 確認上訴委員會有權在上訴待決期間暫緩執行有關事項
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 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 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁定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，並判給電訊盈科在本上訴中的訟費。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 上訴委員會席前及上訴法庭席前所涉的訟費 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭指示與訟雙方於21天內提交書面陳詞，以決定上訴委員會席前及上訴法庭席前所涉的訟費。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港電話有限公司（PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LIMITED）就電訊管理局局長指示提出上訴，爭議焦點為上訴委員會是否有權在上訴待決期間暫緩執行有關事項。法庭通過分析《電訊條例》相關法條及判例，認為第32N(2)條未有明文禁止或准許上訴委員會在上訴待決期間酌情暫緩執行有關事項。最終，高等法院裁定上訴委員會具有此權力，並確認電訊盈科勝訴，判給其本上訴中的訟費。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 梅師賢爵士
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 電訊管理局
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人，涉案機構。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港電話有限公司 (PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，涉案公司。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 電訊盈科
|
||||||
|
reason: 與案件相關的另一方，但未明確其法律地位。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: John Griffiths先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23案中擔任上訴委員會主席，闡述有關法例詮釋原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高等法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴法庭成員，在FACV14Y/2004案中裁決電訊盈科的上訴。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 上訴法庭副庭長羅傑志
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴法庭成員，在FACV14Y/2004案中裁決電訊盈科的上訴。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 上訴法庭法官郭美超
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴法庭成員，在FACV14Y/2004案中裁決電訊盈科的上訴。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 香港聯合交易所有限公司 (THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 新世界發展有限公司 (NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
- 拿督鄭裕彤博士 (DATO’ DR CHENG YU TUNG)
|
||||||
|
- 鄭家純博士 (DR CHENG KAR-SHUN, HENRY)
|
||||||
|
- 冼為堅博士 (DR SIN WAI-KIN, DAVID)
|
||||||
|
- 梁仲豪 (LIANG CHONG-HOU, DAVID)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人就答辯人在紀律委員會聆訊中不得由法律顧問全面參與提出司法覆核，質疑該程序安排是否合法。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 法律代表權
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 針對有關指示的批評是否過早提出 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴得直。終審法院認定，在Pannick先生所主張的兩種意義上，針對有關指示的批評均是過早提出。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 駁回司法覆核申請 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回各名答辯人的司法覆核申請。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 支付訟費 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判給上訴人在本院及下級法庭的訟費，答辯人需支付上訴人在本院及下級法庭的訟費。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及香港聯合交易所有限公司（上訴人）就答辯人在紀律委員會聆訊中不得由法律顧問全面參與提出司法覆核，質疑該程序安排是否合法。法庭認為，《基本法》第35條賦予答辯人接受公正審問的權利，但因相關程序指示在聆訊前發出且未經充分考慮，上訴法庭裁定該程序安排侵犯了答辯人的法律代表權。終審法院認定，在Pannick先生所主張的兩種意義上，針對有關指示的批評均是過早提出。最終，上訴得直，駁回各名答辯人的司法覆核申請，並判給上訴人在本院及下級法庭的訟費。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官之一，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官之一，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官之一，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官鮑偉華爵士
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案參與法官，但未明確其具體角色。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官伍爾夫勳爵
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案參與法官，但未明確其具體角色。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 夏正民原訟法庭法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 未在判決書中明確提及具體職位，但涉及程序安排的理解。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張澤祐上訴法庭法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 未在判決書中明確提及具體職位，但涉及函件回覆的背景信息。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 新世界發展有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 拿督鄭裕彤博士
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二答辯人，新世界的執行董事之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭家純博士
|
||||||
|
reason: 第三答辯人，新世界的執行董事之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 冼為堅博士
|
||||||
|
reason: 第四答辯人，新世界的執行董事之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 梁仲豪
|
||||||
|
reason: 第五答辯人，新世界的執行董事之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港聯合交易所有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 上市科
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉及指控和程序安排的政府部門。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 證券及期貨事務監察委員會（證監會）
|
||||||
|
reason: 港交所受到其監管、監察和規管。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港交易及結算所有限公司（交易及結算所）
|
||||||
|
reason: 港交所的控股公司，上市委員會成員之一。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 官永義
|
||||||
|
- 陳建成
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴人財政司司長就一項由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，涉及《香港人權法案》第10及11條是否適用於有關法律程序。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 免使自己入罪的保障
|
||||||
|
- 保持緘默的權利
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及財政司司長就內幕交易審裁處根據《證券（內幕交易）條例》進行研訊提出上訴，核心爭議焦點為《香港人權法案》第10及11條是否適用於該法律程序。法庭認為，即使不涉及刑事控告，相關程序仍需遵守免使自己入罪的保障和保持緘默的權利。審裁處採用“高度可能性”的民事舉證標準而非刑事標準，違反了《人權法案》的要求。最終，終審法院裁定上訴得直，推翻審裁處的不利裁決並命令財政司司長支付答辯人的上訴費。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 官永義
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，在案件中被指控行為不當。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳建成
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，在案件中被指控行為不當。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 內幕交易審裁處
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案機構，進行研訊並作出不利裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 財政司司長
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二答辯人，在案件中提出上訴。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 梅師賢爵士
|
||||||
|
reason: 在R v. Securities and Futures Commission, ex parte Lee Kwok-hung一案[未提供案號]中擔任法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第34段引用其判詞。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- GA
|
||||||
|
- FI
|
||||||
|
- JA
|
||||||
|
- PA
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
四名上訴人（經核實難民和酷刑聲請人）就入境事務處處長不准他們工作的決定提出司法覆核，爭議點在於是否在香港有憲法保障的工作權。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 工作准許
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 涉及《基本法》第41條的解釋 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 維持原判。法庭認為，《基本法》第41條保障在港境內的人享有某些權利和自由，但並未明確指出非香港居民亦受此條約束。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及四名经核实难民和酷刑声请人就入境事务处不准其工作的决定提出司法覆核，争议点在于香港是否保障非本地居民的工作权。法庭认为，《基本法》第41条并未明确指出非香港居民受此条款约束，因此未支持申请人的主张。终审法院首席法官马道立、李义等五名主审法官维持原判，认为入境事务处的决定符合相关法律和政策规定。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張舉能法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 原訟法庭法官，判案書中提及
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴法庭法官，在判詞中提及
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人，多次在文內提及
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- CHAK HAK T/A STANDARD (HONG KONG) CO.
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 精誼紙品廠
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
精誼紙品廠就CHAK HAK T/A STANDARD (HONG KONG) CO.未支付貨款提出申索，被告方否認承擔債務。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 貨款
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 被告人的上訴許可 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為被告不能顯示其上訴涉及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。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 被告人是否須負擔申索人的債務 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭認為被告人在收購明暉過程中選擇在明暉原址經營，並委任何小姐為公司營業經理及容許其使用公司印章，造成何小姐是被告公司獲授權的代表或代理人的客觀事實，因此需為何小姐的作為負上責任。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
CHAK HAK T/A STANDARD (HONG KONG) CO.（原告）向精誼紙品廠（被告）追討貨款，但被告否認承擔債務。法庭認為被告在收購明暉過程中選擇在明暉原址經營並委任何小姐為公司營業經理及容許其使用公司印章，造成何小姐是被告公司獲授權的代表或代理人的客觀事實，因此需為何小姐的作為負上責任。法庭駁回了被告的上訴申請，裁定被告敗訴並須支付貨款。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 朱芬齡暫委法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 翟格先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人公司的負責人，代表被告人出席聆訊。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 精誼紙品廠
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人（答辯人），與被告人之間存在貨款爭議。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAK HAK T/A STANDARD (HONG KONG) CO.
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人，上訴人，涉及債務轉讓問題。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何小姐
|
||||||
|
reason: 明暉製品公司的東主，並出任被告人的營業經理，使用公司印章確認欠款。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人東主，與被告人方面協議由被告人承擔欠款。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 英國保誠保險有限公司
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 何添
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
英國保誠保險有限公司就何添未能償還預支佣金及相關欠款提出破產呈請。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 破產命令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 英國保誠保險有限公司要求對何添作出破產命令 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 法庭頒令何添先生破產。由於何先生對於呈請人追討的債項並無任何實質爭議，且沒有能力償還，因此法庭必須作出破產命令。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 呈請人的訟費支付方式 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 呈請人的訟費將由何先生的資產支付。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
英國保誠保險有限公司因何添未能償還預支佣金及相關欠款，向香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭提出破產呈請。法庭認定何添對於債項無實質爭議且無法償還，因此頒令其破產（責任問題）。法庭同時決定呈請人的訟費將由何先生的資產支付（損失範圍）。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 關淑馨
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 蕭泳茵
|
||||||
|
reason: 呈請人普衡律師事務所的代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何添先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 債務人，無律師代表，親自應訊。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張偉顏
|
||||||
|
reason: 破產管理署的大律師代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 英國保誠保險有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 債權人，提出破產呈請。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 郭宇謙
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就郭宇謙在2010年第278號案件中被裁定猥褻侵犯罪有罪提出定罪上訴。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- ''
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 定罪上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴得直。法庭認為第一證人的描述存在矛盾，且未能合理解釋為何在現場說出右邊臀部而非中間股溝，因此裁定上訴人無罪。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
在香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭案件中，郭宇謙因2010年第278號案件被裁定猥褻侵犯罪有罪提出定罪上訴。核心爭議焦點在於第一證人的描述是否存在矛盾以及觸碰位置的合理性。法庭認為，第一證人未能合理解釋為何在現場說出右邊臀部而非中間股溝，且未交代雙方相對位置下如何排除意外。此外，股溝與右邊臀部區別顯著，第一證人在錄取口供時詳細描述，但無理由不提及股溝。因此，法庭裁定上訴得直，郭宇謙無罪。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮驊
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳詠嫻
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表答辯人香港特別行政區的律政司高級檢控官。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳達輝
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表上訴人的大律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 郭宇謙
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案上訴人，被裁定猥褻侵犯罪有罪。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 邱陽
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就上訴人邱陽在2015年9月於落馬洲站毆打港鐵職員造成的人身傷害提出上訴，要求維持原判並判處上訴人監禁2星期及賠償$2,000給受害人。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 人身傷害賠償
|
||||||
|
- 監禁
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 否認一項侵害人身罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回上訴。法庭認為裁判官的事實裁斷並沒有不妥當的地方，接納控方證人的說法為事實。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 普通襲擊罪 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 維持原判。法庭認為即使受害人沒有跌倒，被告仍然可以干犯了普通襲擊罪。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為香港特別行政區就邱陽在2015年9月於落馬洲站毆打港鐵職員造成的人身傷害提出上訴，要求維持原判並判處監禁2星期及賠償$2,000。法庭認為裁判官的事實裁斷無不妥當，接納控方證人的說法為事實，駁回上訴人否認侵害人身罪的主張。法庭指出即使受害人沒有跌倒，被告仍可干犯普通襲擊罪。法庭基於上述理由維持原判，駁回上訴。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官陳廣池
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司高級檢控官馮美琪
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表香港特別行政區出庭的律政司高級檢控官。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 邱陽
|
||||||
|
reason: 上訴人，被控侵害人身罪並提出上訴。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 裁判官周至偉
|
||||||
|
reason: 原審裁判官，負責初審案件。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 港鐵職員（第一控方證人）
|
||||||
|
reason: 案發當日身穿制服，在落馬洲站負責人群控制的港鐵職員，被上訴人推撞後跌倒。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
reason: 作為答辯人出庭，代表政府一方。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 王欽賢
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 高景波
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
債務人未在法定期限內支付債項，原告根據《破產條例》提出破產呈請。被告缺席聆訊並提出反對理由，但法庭認為其理由不足。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 破產令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 破產令 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 債務人敗訴。法庭認為債務人未能提供充分證據支持其反對理由，且未提出還款建議，因此法庭有足夠理據作出慣常破產令。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 作廢申請的爭議 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 債務人敗訴。法庭已考慮過相關爭議並撤銷了債務人的作廢申請，判定債務人需支付作廢申請的訟費。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及王欽賢對高景波提起的破產呈請。高景波缺席聆訊並提出反對理由，但法庭認為其理由不足。根據《破產條例》第6A(1)(a)條，法庭認定高景波未在法定期限內支付債項，因此作出慣常破產令。法庭評估了證據後，認為高景波未能提供充分支持其反對理由的證據，且其指控缺乏實質性。此外，法庭考慮過相關爭議並撤銷了高景波的作廢申請，判定他需支付作廢申請的訟費。最終，法庭裁定高景波敗訴，作出破產令。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 高景波
|
||||||
|
reason: 債務人，涉案人士。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 王欽賢
|
||||||
|
reason: 呈請人，涉案人士。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳鈺麟
|
||||||
|
reason: 在HCB 8188/2013案中擔任暫委法官職位，闡述既判事項原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 徐韻華
|
||||||
|
reason: 在[2024] HKCFI 92案中擔任暫委法官職位，撤銷債務人的作廢申請並判定債務人需支付作廢申請的訟費。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 葉承昊大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表呈請人王欽賢出庭。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 董吳謝林律師事務所
|
||||||
|
reason: 呈請人的律師事務所，代表呈請人王欽賢出庭。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
就潘浩鈺、許文明及徐學培三名死者的死亡事件召開死因研訊，研究其死亡原因及相關情況。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 死亡原因研究
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 無涉及。根據死因裁判官的決定，死因研訊不會處理責任(包括刑事及民事)的問題，相關事宜將由其他法庭處理。
|
||||||
|
- charge: (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 無涉及。由於本案為死因研訊，並未涉及任何索償或損失計算。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為潘浩鈺、許文明及徐學培三名死者死亡事件之死因研訊，研究其死亡原因及相關情況。核心爭議焦點在於確定死亡原因及其相關因素。法庭根據《死因裁判官條例》第27條，指出死因研訊僅研究死亡個案的原因及與該宗死亡個案有關的情況，不會處理責任（包括刑事及民事）問題。警方初步完成搜證，但需時整理及研究相關證供。最終裁決結果為：本案不涉及責任問題及損失範圍，死因研訊將於2023年年底或2024年初召開。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 死因裁判官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責召開及主持死因研訊。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 署理主任裁判官高偉雄
|
||||||
|
reason: 在2023年3月29日簽署文件的署理主任裁判官，具體姓名為高偉雄。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant: []
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
召開死因研訊以研究三十九名死者死亡的原因及相關情況，並提出改善建議，但不會處理責任問題。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 死亡原因研究
|
||||||
|
- 改善建議
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 涉及三十九名死者死亡事件的死因研訊目的及安排 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 不處理責任問題，包括刑事及民事責任。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 警方調查進度 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 警方已收到初步報告並預計在2024年6月初提交完整報告。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及三十九名死者死亡事件的死因研訊，由死因裁判官周慧珠主審。研訊目的為研究死者死亡原因及相關情況，並提出改善建議，但不會處理責任問題（包括刑事及民事）。法庭根據《死因裁判官條例》第27條，評估證據專注於確定死者身份、死亡時間和地點以及死因，並考慮工作系統或方法上的不足。警方已收到初步報告，預計在2024年6月初提交完整報告。最終裁決結果為不處理責任問題，並指示各方盡快召開研訊。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周慧珠
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審死因裁判官，負責召開死因研訊及作出相關決定。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 競爭事務委員會
|
||||||
|
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)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
競爭事務委員會就第一答辯人及其他答辯人涉嫌違反《競爭法》向其提出處罰申索。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 處罰
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 撤銷第一答辯人、第二至第九答辯人的反訴，並命令其向申請人支付HK$1,000,000的彌償金。
|
||||||
|
- charge: (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 維持原判，確認申請人可獲得HK$1,000,000的彌償金，並支付相關利息及訴訟費用。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
競爭事務委員會就馮氏機電工程有限公司等八家公司及個人涉嫌違反《競爭法》向其提出處罰申索。法庭認定上述公司和個人存在違法行為，撤銷其反訴並命令支付HK$1,000,000的彌償金。法院基於充分證據評估了案件事實，確認申請人可獲得HK$1,000,000及相關利息和訴訟費用。最終裁決結果為維持原判，支持競爭事務委員會的請求。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 歐陽桂如
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮氏機電工程有限公司 (FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 義興鐵器土木油漆工程 (YEE HING METAL SHOP)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張棉經營雅閣建築裝修工程公司 (CHEUNG MIN trading as ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第三答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 興盛建築公司 (HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第四答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 聯合裝飾工程有限公司 (LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第五答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陶記營造廠有限公司 (DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第六答辯人，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃偉銓 (WONG WAI CHUEN)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第七答辯人，自然人答辯人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃富新 (WONG FU SAN)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第八答辯人，自然人答辯人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張潤錦 (CHEUNG YUN KAM)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第九答辯人，自然人答辯人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鮑惠蓮 (PAU WAI LIN)
|
||||||
|
reason: 擬成為第三方的自然人。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- Competition Commission
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (馮氏機電工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- YEE HING METAL SHOP (義興鐵器土木油漆工程)
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG MIN (張棉) trading as ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO (雅閣建築裝修工程公司)
|
||||||
|
- HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (興盛建築公司)
|
||||||
|
- LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (陶記營造廠有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- WONG WAI CHUEN (黃偉銓)
|
||||||
|
- WONG FU SAN (黃富新)
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG YUN KAM (張潤錦)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
Competition Commission challenges the enforcement action regarding anti-competitive practices by FUN
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- anti-competitive practices
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 1st Respondent FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (馮氏機電工程有限公司) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 1st Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 2nd Respondent YEE HING METAL SHOP (義興鐵器土木油漆工程) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 2nd Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 3rd Respondent CHEUNG MIN (張棉) trading as ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO (雅閣建築裝修工程公司) liability
|
||||||
|
issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 3rd Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 4th Respondent HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (興盛建築公司) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 4th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 5th Respondent LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 5th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 6th Respondent DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (陶記營造廠有限公司) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 6th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 7th Respondent WONG WAI CHUEN (黃偉銓) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 7th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 8th Respondent WONG FU SAN (黃富新) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 8th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
- charge: 9th Respondent CHEUNG YUN KAM (張潤錦) liability issue
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Tribunal found that the 9th Respondent had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
|
||||||
|
as alleged by the Applicant, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: "In the case of Competition Commission v FUNGS E&M Engineering Company Limited et al.,\
|
||||||
|
\ the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Competition Tribunal found that all nine respondents,\
|
||||||
|
\ including FUNGS E&M Engineering Company Limited and others, engaged in anti-competitive practices\
|
||||||
|
\ as alleged by the "
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Competitive Commission
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: FUNGS E&M Engineering Company Limited (馮氏機電工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 1st Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Yee Hing Metal Shop (義興鐵器土木油漆工程)
|
||||||
|
reason: 2nd Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHEUNG MIN trading as ACCORD Construction & Decoration Co (張棉) (雅閣建築裝修工程公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 3rd Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HING SHING Construction Company (興盛建築公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 4th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LUEN HOP Decoration Engineering Company Limited (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 5th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: DAO KEE Construction Company Limited (陶記營造廠有限公司)
|
||||||
|
reason: 6th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG WAI CHUEN (黃偉銓)
|
||||||
|
reason: 7th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG FU SAN (黃富新)
|
||||||
|
reason: 8th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHEUNG YUN KAM (張潤錦)
|
||||||
|
reason: 9th Respondent in the case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 副主任法官歐陽桂如
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge of the case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- COMPETITION COMMISSION
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (馮氏機電工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- YEE HING MET SHOP (義興鐵器土木油漆工程)
|
||||||
|
- CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO (雅閣建築裝修工程公司)
|
||||||
|
- HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (興盛建築公司)
|
||||||
|
- LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (陶記營造廠有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- WONG WAI CHUEN (黃偉銓)
|
||||||
|
- WONG FU SAN (黃富新)
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG YUN KAM (張潤錦)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
第九答辩人R9在2017年6月至11月期间参与违反竞争守则的行为，未采取措施阻止或纠正，被申请两年取消资格令。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 取消资格令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: R9是否適合關涉公司的管理 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭認為R9的情況屬於中間級別而偏低的嚴重性，但考慮到其承認責任及申請程序上的延誤等因素，取消資格令的有效期為一年十個月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 取消資格令的有效期 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭根據《條例》第101條，針對R9而發出取消資格令，有效期為本命令的日期起計的一年零十個月，即是至2022年8月30日為止。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 部分勝訴。法庭批准競委會收取文件冊內第1至11.3項的影印費，並給予R9 20%訟費方面的寬免。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及第九答辩人R9在2017年6月至11月期间参与违反竞争守则的行为，被申请人香港竞争委员会申请两年取消其资格令。法庭依据《竞争条例》第101条和第103条进行审理，认为R9的情况属于中等偏轻的严重性，但由于其承认责任及申请程序上的延误等因素，最终裁定取消资格令的有效期为一年十个月。法庭还考虑了其他求情因素，如R9的年龄、阅读能力有限以及私人性质的公司等情况。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 歐陽桂如副主任法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮氏機電工程有限公司 (FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 義興鐵器土木油漆工程 (YEE HING METAL SHOP)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 雅閣建築裝修工程公司 (CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 興盛建築公司 (HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 聯合裝飾工程有限公司 (LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陶記營造廠有限公司 (DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃偉銓 (WONG WAI CHUEN)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案自然人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃富新 (WONG FU SAN)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案自然人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張潤錦 (CHEUNG YUN KAM)
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案自然人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港競爭委員會 (COMPETITION COMMISSION)
|
||||||
|
reason: 申请人，提出申请的机构。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- COMPETITION COMMISSION
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (馮氏機電工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- YEE HING METAL SHOP (義興鐵器土木油漆工程)
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG MIN (張棉) trading as ACCORD CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION CO (雅閣建築裝修工程公司)
|
||||||
|
- HING SHING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (興盛建築公司)
|
||||||
|
- LUEN HOP DECORATION ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED (聯合裝飾工程有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- DAO KEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (陶記營造廠有限公司)
|
||||||
|
- WONG WAI CHUEN (黃偉銓)
|
||||||
|
- WONG FU SAN (黃富新)
|
||||||
|
- CHEUNG YUN KAM (張潤錦)
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
原告為競爭委員會，就被告裝修承辦商違反《競爭條例》第6條及91條提出申索，要求罰款、禁止進行違法行為及經20%扣減的訟費。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 罰款
|
||||||
|
- 禁制令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 答辯人須支付罰款 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 答辯人需支付罰款，其中R1需支付HK$598,000，R2需支付HK$469,000，R3需支付HK$333,000，R4需支付HK$388,000，R5需支付HK$334,000，R6需支付HK$341,000，R7需支付HK$200,000，R8需支付HK$600,000。罰款可分六期平均支付，於2021年2月1日支付第一期，其後在每個月第一日支付，直至清付為止。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 答辯人須支付訟費 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 競委會與R1達成協議，競委會準備證人陳述書的訟費的1/6；競委會準備與R1之間的同意傳票及同意事實的陳述書的訟費；競委會在2020年12月2日的聆訊的訟費（包括大律師證書）；競委會其餘計至及包括第二次案件管理聆訊（2020年7月13日）的訟費的九分之一；所有訟費寬減20%。R2-R6須各自支付競委會在2020年10月20日的聆訊（減去十分鐘）的訟費（包括大律師証書），其中只批准競委會收取文件冊內第1至11.3項的影印費。每人付八分之一；R2-R8應各自支付競委會計至及包括第二次案件管理聆訊(2020年7月13日)的訟費的九分之一；所有訟費寬減20%。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 答辯人須把支付的證明文件交給競委會以便跟進 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 答辯人須把支付的證明文件交給競委會以便跟進。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 撤銷禁止令的申請 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 撤銷禁止令的申請獲准。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處處理的一宗涉及裝修承辦商違反《競爭條例》第6條及91條的案件，原告為競爭委員會，被告包括多家公司和自然人。法庭採用永興案第3號的四步法評估罰款，考慮了銷售價值、嚴重性百分比及持續期間乘數等要素。最終裁定各被告需支付罰款，其中R1需支付HK$598,000，R2需支付HK$469,000，其他被告亦各有罰款，並須支付部分訟費。法庭認為反競爭行為的廣泛性屬於第二步調整因素，而非第一步基礎金額計算的一部分。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 歐陽桂如副主任法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林雲浩主任法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Competition Commission v W Hing Construction Co Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 1229（永興案第3號）中擔任主筆法官，闡述四步法，本案第8、34段引用其判詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮氏機電工程有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 義興鐵器土木油漆工程
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 雅閣建築裝修工程公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第三被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 興盛建築公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第四被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 聯合裝飾工程有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第五被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陶記營造廠有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 第六被告方，涉案公司之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃偉銓
|
||||||
|
reason: 第七被告方，自然人被告之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃富新
|
||||||
|
reason: 第八被告方，自然人被告之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 張潤錦
|
||||||
|
reason: 第九被告方，自然人被告之一。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 梁家威
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
被告於2013年2月1日在大埔大元邨遊戲機鋪內受指使持牛肉刀傷人，但因膽怯未有下手。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 監禁
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 串謀有意圖而傷人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告被判監禁18個月。法庭考慮了案情、控罪性質及辯方輕判請求，認為被告雖承認控罪且無犯罪前科，但因答允以刀傷害他人屬極為嚴重的罪行，最終給予一定的刑罰減免。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 串謀有意圖而傷人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告被判監禁18個月（與另一項罪名同期執行）。法庭考慮了被告協助控方出庭頂證等因素，從原本的20個月監禁下調至18個月。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及被告梁家威于2013年2月受指使持牛肉刀伤人，但因胆怯未下手。香港特别行政区诉称梁家威串谋故意伤害他人，法庭经审理后认为，尽管梁家威无犯罪前科且协助控方出庭顶证，但其答允以刀伤人的行为属极严重罪行。最终，法庭考虑案情、控罪性质及辩方轻判请求，判处梁家威监禁18个月（与另一项罪名同期执行）。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳仲衡
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Ms Helen CHAN
|
||||||
|
reason: 為外聘律師，代表香港特別行政區。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr 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，代表被告人梁家威。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
reason: 訴方。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 梁家威
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 蘇志偉
|
||||||
|
reason: 控罪一的目標人物。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 溫榮基
|
||||||
|
reason: 控罪二的目標傷害人物。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 阿庭
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告承認受其指使，持牛肉刀到遊戲機鋪傷人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 阿勝
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告承認曾與其商量傷人的計劃、逃走路線等細節。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 鍾海亮
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
被告人於2005年至2011年期間與他人串謀詐騙香港特別行政區政府婚姻登記官及入境處人員，涉及虛假結婚以獲發證明書及許可證進入香港。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 監禁
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 被告人鍾海亮於本席席前承認案中兩項串謀詐騙罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告人的總刑罰是監禁20個月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 控罪一涉及被告人與陳秋嬋的假結婚行為，經審訊後，法庭認同18個月監禁是適當的量刑基準 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處被告監禁9個月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 就著控罪二，被告的角色不如陳秋嬋吃重，按被告人於案中的角色，經審訊後適當的量刑基準應是三年零三個月監禁 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處被告監禁16個月。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及被告人鍾海亮於2005年至2011年期間與他人串謀詐騙香港特別行政區政府婚姻登記官及入境處人員，以虛假結婚獲發證明書及許可證進入香港。法庭根據被告人的承認和審訊結果，判處被告人監禁20個月。在評估證據方面，法庭考慮了被告的承認、角色以及為檢控提供的協助等因數。最終，法庭認為被告人的總刑罰是監禁20個月。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳仲衡
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司高級檢控官Mr Sharman LAM
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表香港特別行政區出庭。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 練松柏律師行律師Ms Pauline LAM
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表被告人鍾海亮出庭。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 伍艷娟
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 興華促進有限公司
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申索人伍艷娟就1997年在興華促進有限公司工作時因使用電腦引致頸椎退化向公司提出僱員補償申請。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 僱員補償
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 本案延遲訴訟 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為伍女士未能提供合理辯解，並違反了「既判案件」原則。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判給答辯人本傳票與及申請書HK$15,450的訟費，為暫准命令，除非任何一方於本判決書日期起計14天內提出更改。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及伍艷娟因1997年在興華促進有限公司工作時使用電腦引致頸椎退化而提出的僱員補償申請，但被法庭駁回延遲訴訟的主張。法庭認為伍女士未能提供合理辯解，並違反了「既判案件」原則。法庭評估證據發現，伍女士在1997年受傷後兩年內有足夠時間提出索償申請，且其提供的新文件和證供不足以構成合理辯解。最終，法庭駁回伍艷娟的申索，並判給興華促進有限公司HK$15,450的訟費。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 羅雪梅審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鍾大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表興華促進有限公司的律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 興華促進有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人，涉案公司。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 伍艷娟
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人，受傷員工。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳世偉
|
||||||
|
reason: 案件（一）的答辯人，興華促進有限公司的股東及董事。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- PRIMECREDIT LIMITED
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- WONG MEI YAN PATRICIA
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
上訴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提出之上訴，因未有還款而未能成功覆核原判決。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 物業的押記令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 上訴人就聆案官杜潔玲於2015年12月29日作出的命令而提出之上訴 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為上訴人沒有實質理據去支持成功覆核杜聆案官的命令，且上訴已逾時三個多月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 上訴人須支付原告人訟費。若雙方未能協議，訟費則由法庭評定。此訟費命令乃暫准性質；任何一方未有在由今天起計14天內提出申請更改，訟費自動作實。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案為上訴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提出之上訴，因未有還款而未能成功覆核原判決。核心爭議焦點在於上訴人是否應支付原告人PRIMECREDIT LIMITED的訟費。法庭認為上訴已逾時三個多月且上訴人沒有實質理據支持其聲稱，因此駁回上訴人的申請。法庭進一步裁定上訴人須支付原告人訟費，若雙方未能協議，訟費則由法庭評定。此訟費命令為暫准性質；任何一方未有在14天內提出更改申請，訟費自動作實。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 萬可宜
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 劉林陳律師行的Law Wing Chi律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表原告人PRIMECREDIT LIMITED
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG MEI YAN PATRICIA
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案被告人，親自應訊
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 李少培
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就被告人李少培於2021年7月在九龍旺角新填地街427A大廈管理煙窟及販運、管有危險藥物向被告人提出刑事訴訟。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 管理煙窟罪
|
||||||
|
- 販運危險藥物罪
|
||||||
|
- 管有適合用作吸服危險藥物的器具罪
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 管理煙窟 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告認罪及同意相關案情下，被裁定第1項控罪罪名成立。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 販運危險藥物 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告認罪及同意相關案情下，被裁定第2項控罪罪名成立。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物的器具 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告認罪及同意相關案情下，被裁定第3項控罪罪名成立。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第1項控罪 - 管理煙窟 的刑期 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處12個月監禁。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第2項控罪 - 販運危險藥物 的刑期 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處34個月監禁。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第3項控罪 - 管有適合於及擬用作吸服危險藥物的器具 的刑期 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處4個月監禁。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就被告人李少培於2021年7月在九龍旺角新填地街427A大廈管理煙窟及販運、管有危險藥物向其提出刑事訴訟。案件中，控方提供了詳細的證據，包括被告人的認罪陳述和現場搜獲的毒品及器具。法庭根據《危險藥物條例》及其附表一，裁定被告人三項罪名成立：管理煙窟、販運危險藥物及管有適合用作吸服危險藥物的器具。考慮到被告有多次毒品犯罪前科，最終判處12個月監禁（管理煙窟）、34個月監禁（販運危險藥物）和4個月監禁（管有器具），並建議總刑期避免過長。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 區域法院法官李慶年
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 謝家樹先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 為外聘大律師，代表香港特別行政區。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 傅昶生先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 由法律援助署委派的王婉芝律師行延聘，代表被告人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李少培
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人在案件中被控告及認罪。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
五位申索人就被告公司遣散費及終止僱傭金提出申索，被告公司不服勞資審裁處2012年7月13日之裁決並提出覆核申請。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 遣散費
|
||||||
|
- 終止僱傭金
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 五位申索人就遣散費的索償 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。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。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 五位申索人就終止僱傭金的追討 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。被告公司第二項有關終止僱傭金的追討被撤銷。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 被告公司的覆核申請 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。被告公司並無任何新增的理據以支持其覆核的申請。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 被告公司要求暫緩發放裁決款項 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。被告公司並無充份理據支持其申請，故不予批准。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 不作訟費命令。由於雙方皆不作申請，故此不作訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及鄭國華、黎亞來、廖發開、何清海及徐志中五位申索人就利興清潔服務有限公司提出的遣散費及終止僱傭金申索。法庭認定被告公司須即時支付五位申索人的遣散費，但駁回其終止僱傭金的追討申請。此外，法庭亦駁回了被告公司的覆核申請和暫緩發放裁決款項的申請。根據《勞資審裁處條例》第39(3)條計算利息並由被告公司支付。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林美施審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭國華
|
||||||
|
reason: 五位申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黎亞來
|
||||||
|
reason: 五位申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 廖發開
|
||||||
|
reason: 五位申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何清海
|
||||||
|
reason: 五位申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 徐志中
|
||||||
|
reason: 五位申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 利興清潔服務有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告公司，涉案方。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
五名申索人（鄭國華、黎亞來、廖發開、何清海及徐志中）就被告公司（利興清潔服務有限公司）未有支付遣散費或終止僱傭金提出申索。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 遣散費
|
||||||
|
- 終止僱傭金
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 五名申索人與被告公司的僱傭合約終結 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭認為被告公司未能提供實質證據支持其說法，且考慮到雙方之後的行為，裁定僱傭關係隨着食環署合約終結而告終。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 遣散費申索 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁決五名申索人因被解僱而獲支付遣散費，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，並計算利息。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 終止僱傭金的追討 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭撤銷了此項追討，因為已裁決五名申索人獲支付遣散費。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭命令被告公司支付各申索人的訟費及利息，金額分別為第三申索人港幣197元；第四申索人港幣1,020元；第七申索人港幣180元；第九申索人港幣290元；第十一申索人港幣199元，並計算利息。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及五名申索人（鄭國華、黎亞來、廖發開、何清海及徐志中）與被告公司（利興清潔服務有限公司）之間因未支付遣散費或終止僱傭金而產生的爭議。法庭根據《僱傭條例》第31D條裁定雙方僱傭關係於2011年12月31日終結，五名申索人因此獲支付遣散費及訟費。法庭認為被告公司未能提供實質證據支持其說法，且考慮到雙方之後的行為，認定五名申索人在被單方面調派後行使了終止僱傭合約的權利。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林美施審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭國華
|
||||||
|
reason: 第三申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黎亞來
|
||||||
|
reason: 第四申索人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 廖發開
|
||||||
|
reason: 第七申索人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何清海
|
||||||
|
reason: 第九申索人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 徐志中
|
||||||
|
reason: 第十一申索人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 利興清潔服務有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告公司，涉案公司。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 胡瀞心
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告公司的執行董事，出席12月28日會議的代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 胡美蓮
|
||||||
|
reason: 「清潔工人職工會」幹事，出席12月28及29日會議的代表。
|
||||||
|
- 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: 勞工處
|
||||||
|
reason: 收到員工投訴並參與會議的政府部門。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)
|
||||||
|
- 梁秀勤 (LEUNG SUI KUEN)
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Belvedere Garden Phase II 葉屋花園第二期業主有限公司
|
||||||
|
- 蔣書濤 (CHIANG SHU TO)
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人就2002年2月27日提交的160封代表建築物5% Ownership的信件向第二答辯人提出申請，要求其召集業主團體會議選舉新的管理委員會。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 訟費
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申請人須支付剔除申請聆訊的訟費 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭認為本案所有針對第二答辯人的事實和證據，並不具有Choy Yee Chun一案所述明的因素，因此以彌償基準作為計算申請人支付第二答辯人訟費的基礎是不適當的。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申請人須支付再修訂申請通知書的訟費 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭批准了申請人在2002年6月17日提出的再修訂申請通知書，故此第二答辯人須支付該申請聆訊的訟費。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 原訴申請的訟費 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭命令兩名申請人須支付予第二答辯人原訴申請（Originating Application）的訟費。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及陳大文及梁秀勤申請召集業主團體會議選舉新的管理委員會，但被Belvedere Garden Phase II及蔣書濤反對。法庭評估證據後認為，陳大文及梁秀勤的申請缺乏合理訴因，故裁定剔除其申請並命令支付訟費。法庭引用Choy
|
||||||
|
Yee Chun案指，本案事實和證據不符合彌償基準，因此不適用該標準計算訟費。相反，法庭批准了陳大文於2002年6月17日提出的再修訂申請通知書，裁定其勝訴並須支付相關訟費。最終，法庭命令兩名申請人支付原訴申請的訟費及剔除申請聆訊的訟費。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周兆熊法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 葉楊福蘭楊福祺律師行
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表申請人之一的律師行。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李周彭陳律師行
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表第二答辯人的律師行。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Maurice Ng大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表第二答辯人大律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chan Yip Keung
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人之一，缺乏提出本案申請的法律地位。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Leung Shiu Kuen
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Incorporated Owners of Belvedere Garden Phase II
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一答辯人，涉案的機構。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Chiang Shu To (蔣書濤)
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二答辯人之一。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- The Incorporated Owners of Tai Tat Building
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- Leung Wai Sum
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申请人要求答辩人支付5A及5C室的电力维修费和电梯维修费共计12,236元，因答辩人未支付该费用，申请人于2003年2月28日在小额钱债审裁处提起诉讼。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 维修费用
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 答辯人須繳付的費用是12,236元[(1,122.8元+4,984.25元)x2] (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: 命令答辯人於14天內向申請人繳交12,236元的維修費。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: 頒下臨時訟費的命令：答辯人須支付申請人本案的訟費以及在小額錢債審裁處進行的法律程序的訟費，但無須支付申請人聘用大律師的費用。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭按區域法院訟費水平為基準而予以評定。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及Tai Tat Building的业主与5A及5C室业主Leung Wai Sum之间的维修费用纠纷。原告申请人在2003年2月28日向小额钱债审裁处提起诉讼，要求被告支付电力和电梯维修费共计12,236元。法院认为，虽然被告辩称管理费不公平，但根据《建筑物管理条例》第45(3)条的规定，审裁处无权裁定公契条款的公平性。最终，法院裁定被告须在14天内支付原告12,236元维修费用，并命令被告承担本案及小额钱债审裁处法律程序的讼费，但无需支付大律师费用。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Incorporated Owners of Tai Tat Building
|
||||||
|
reason: Applicant in the case, representing the owners' corporation of Tai Tat Building.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Leung Wai Sum
|
||||||
|
reason: Respondent in the case, owner of units 5A and 5C in Tai Tat Building.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周兆熊法官
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 禤氏律師行
|
||||||
|
reason: Representing the applicant in the case.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 陳國強
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 吳志樂
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人陳國強就答辯人吳志樂於2011年在土地上之侵權行為向土地審裁處提出索償。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 土地侵權賠償
|
||||||
|
judgment_result: []
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
陳國強就吳志樂於2011年在土地上之侵權行為向土地審裁處提出索償，爭議焦點為吳志樂是否確實侵犯了陳國強的土地權利。主審法官黃健棠根據現場照片、地圖及雙方證詞評估證據後，認定吳志樂確實構成侵權。法庭引用了若干判例，確認土地使用應遵守相關法規和尊重他人財產權限。最終裁決吳志樂須向陳國強賠償損失並停止侵佔土地之行為。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 土地審裁處暫委法官黃健棠
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳國強
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳志樂
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人之一。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 彭國友
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 梁潤根
|
||||||
|
- 潘保國
|
||||||
|
- 康盛花園業主立案法團
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人彭國友就梁潤根及另二人被指違反建築物管理條例而提出申索，要求土地審裁處宣布其為第一屆主席及第二答辯人不是第一屆管委會的主席，並更正土地註冊處的相關登記。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 更正土地註冊處紀錄
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 宣布2009年1月舉行的業主周年大會無效 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為會議通知及主持程序符合法例要求，且申請人無法證明會議無效。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第二答辯人是否第一屆主席 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為第二答辯人的任期已滿，頒布命令無實際作用。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 修改土地註冊處紀錄 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭考慮所有情況後，拒絕頒布命令要求修改土地註冊處的紀錄。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 管理委員會支付第一答辯人律師費用 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 支持。法庭裁定管委會有權通過議案代第一答辯人聘請律師，且當時環境下管委會合理行事。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第十二次會議續會無效 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為續會程序符合法例要求，不會影響會議及議決的有效性。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及彭國友對梁潤根及康盛花園業主立案法團提出的申索，要求宣布梁潤根非第一屆管委會主席並更正土地註冊處紀錄。法庭認為2009年1月舉行的業主周年大會無效之指控被駁回，因會議通知及主持程序符合法例要求；第二答辯人任期已滿，頒布命令無實際作用；修改土地註冊處紀錄之申請亦被駁回。法庭引用了多個判例，如黃一鳴法官在LDBM112/2008案中指出，若濟助無實質作用，土地審裁處可拒絕行駛酌情權。最終，法庭駁回彭國友所有申索，支持管理委員會支付律師費用之決定。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 土地審裁處暫委法官余敏奇
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 姚勳智法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在LDBM111/2008案中擔任土地審裁處暫委法官，闡述流會的見解。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃一鳴法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在LDBM112/2008案中審理案件並頒下判詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鍾沛林律師行
|
||||||
|
reason: 向第三答辯人提供法律意見，指申請人沒有出席三次會議已連續三次缺席管委會會議。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳志華律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 受聘處理LDBM112/2008案的費用由第三答辯人支付。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 康盛花園業主立案法團
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案場所康盛花園的管理機構，為第三答辯人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭國友
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人，於2005年5月22日獲選為康盛花園業主立案法團管理委員會委員並獲選為主席。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 梁潤根
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一答辯人，在2008年5月6日向土地註冊處存檔更改註冊事項通知書，指彭國友缺席三次會議而被停任委員及主席職銜。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 潘保國
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二答辯人，在2008年11月7日召開管委會會議並通過更改會議地點的議決，以及在2008年12月18日召開第十三次會議。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鍾沛林律師行
|
||||||
|
reason: 向第三答辯人提供法律意見，指彭國友缺席三次會議已連續三次缺席管委會會議。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 文貴益
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 劉炳興
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申請人文貴益聲稱答辯人劉炳興欠租，雙方爭議是否具租務關係。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 租金
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 雙方是否有租務關係 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁斷雙方有一按年的定期租賃，而答辯人有欠租。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 欠租金額 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 部分勝訴。判給答辯人由2014年2月3日至交回處所的空置管有權為止的欠租/中間收益，以每年1,400元計算。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 申請人勝訴。答辯人須支付申請人的訟費3,300元。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及文貴益與劉炳興之間的租金爭議，雙方是否具租務關係為核心爭議點。法庭通過分析雙方多年交付金錢的行為及證詞，認定存在一按年的定期租賃關係，而劉炳興有欠租。法庭評估了相關證據，認為劉炳興最初誤以為支付的是租金而非「保護費」，並最終裁斷雙方有一按年的定期租賃。根據《高等法院條例》第21F條規定，法庭判給文貴益由2014年2月3日至交回處所的空置管有權為止的欠租/中間收益，以每年1,400元計算，並命令劉炳興支付訟費3,300元。若劉炳興在指定日期前支付所有欠款及訟費，可獲沒收租賃權的寬免。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳紹林審裁處成員
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 文貴益
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人，在案件中聲稱是出租人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 劉炳興
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人，在案件中聲稱是租客。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 文立基
|
||||||
|
reason: 申請人的兒子，代表申請人作供。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 劉天才
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人的兒子，代表答辯人在聆訊中作供。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 劉福祥
|
||||||
|
reason: 答辯人的兒子，代表答辯人在聆訊中作供。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 許智峯
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
申索人為立法會議員，就2018年4月24日在立法會大樓內從政府人員（控方第一證人）手中強取手提電話造成普通襲擊向被告提出刑事指控。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 普通襲擊
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 普通襲擊罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁定控方已证明所有普通袭击罪的控罪元素，被告的行为构成非法武力并成立此罪名。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 阻礙公職人員執行公務 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁定控方已证明被告抢去手机的行为实质上阻碍了控方第一证人的工作，并且被告有意地进行该行为，成立此罪名。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 不誠實地獲益而取用電腦 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁定控方已证明被告有不诚实的意图并获取了电脑中的资料，成立此罪名。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及立法會議員許智峯在2018年4月24日於立法會大樓內從政府人員手中強取手提電話，造成普通襲擊罪名成立。法庭評估證據顯示，被告使用一定程度的力量成功奪走手機，並導致控方第一證人感到驚慌無法繼續工作。法庭認為，被告的行為構成非法武力，符合普通襲擊罪的要件。此外，被告還被裁定阻礙公職人員執行公務及不誠實地獲益而取用電腦等罪名成立。最終，許智峯被判勝訴所有指控。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭念慈
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審裁判官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 控方第一證人（梁諾施）
|
||||||
|
reason: 政府人員，參與立法會大樓內的監察小組工作。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黎惠珊
|
||||||
|
reason: 運輸及房屋局助理秘書長[運輸3B]，監察小組組長。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭朗峰
|
||||||
|
reason: 運輸及房屋局助理秘書長[運輸3C]，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[運輸1]，監察小組技術支援及THB谷歌帳戶的系統管理人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 符傳富
|
||||||
|
reason: 運輸及房屋政治助理，得知手機被搶後採取行動。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 許智峯（被告人）
|
||||||
|
reason: 立法會議員，被控普通襲擊罪。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
reason: 訴方，對許智峯提出指控。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKMagC
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區裁判法院
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
民間人權陣線於2016年11月6日舉辦反對全國人民代表大會就基本法釋法的公眾集會期間，多個被告人煽惑他人參與非法集結及阻撓警務人員。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 社會服務令
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第四被告人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處100小時社會服務令。考慮了案情、良好的背景、非法行為維持短時間、角色為參與者而非領導者，以及對事件的反省。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第六被告人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處100小時社會服務令。考慮了案情、良好的背景、非法行動維持短時間、穩定的生活，以及對事件的反省。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第七被告人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處80小時社會服務令（實際判處14天監禁，緩刑12個月）。考慮了領導角色、良好的背景、年紀尚輕、曾患血癌、积极参与社会运动但事后反省、治疗完成等。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第八被告人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處14天監禁，緩刑12個月（實際判處）。考慮了參與者的角色、良好的背景、年齡等因素。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 第九被告人 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 判處80小時社會服務令（實際判處14天監禁，緩刑12個月）。考慮了參與者的角色、良好的背景、年紀尚轻、曾有类似刑事定罪记录等因素。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及2016年11月6日反釋法遊行期間，多個被告人煽惑他人參與非法集結及阻撓警務人員。法庭根據案件性質、被告人的角色和背景等因素進行判決。例如，第四被告人被判100小时社会服务令，考虑其参与者的角色、良好的背景等；第七被告人被判80小时社会服务令（实际判14天监禁，缓刑12个月），因其领导作用及反省态度。法庭引用了黄之鋒案的判刑指引原则，并认为部分被告人的行为未造成严重后果，故以社会服务令或缓刑为主。最终，各被告人被判不同程度的社会服务令、缓刑或监禁。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃雅茵裁判官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審裁判官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司司長
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung [2018] HKCFAR 35 中擔任律政司司長職位，闡述涉及暴力的非法集結控罪之判刑指引原則，本案第10段引用其判詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 民間人權陣線
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案場所盧押道指定公眾活動區舉辦「反對全國人民代表大會就基本法釋法」的公眾集會的組織方。
|
||||||
|
- 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: 涉案場所，遊行人士欲前往該地點表達訴求。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 郭德英
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 梁家榮
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
郭女士認為梁先生在職務上有失當行為，向法院提出申請以表證成立案情。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 表證成立案情
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 郭女士申請公開聆訊 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為根據相關法例及案例，郭女士的申請可以於內庭處理，無須公開。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 梁先生公職人員行為失當 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為郭女士未能提供一個表證成立的案情，指稱梁先生故意及蓄意疏忽職守或作出失當行為。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及郭德英女士指控梁家榮先生在職務上有失當行為，並申請公開聆訊及發出私人傳票。法庭認為根據相關法例及案例，郭女士的申請可以於內庭處理，無須公開聆訊。法庭評估了郭女士提供的證據和法律論點，認為未能提供一個表證成立的案情。法庭引用了Cheung
|
||||||
|
Kin Chung (1)案中裁判官條例第11條相關法律原則及Re A HCMP2728/2017案中吳美玲法官關於公開聆訊的分析。最終裁決駁回郭女士要求公開聆訊的申請，並駁回所有私人傳票，裁定梁先生公職人員行為失當的指控無證據支持。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄧少雄署理主任裁判官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審裁判官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 容海恩大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 郭女士的代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: '[1] Cheung Kin Chung (1)'
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Cheung Kin Chung (1)案中擔任法官，闡述裁判官條例第11條相關法律原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: '[2] Cheung Kin Chung (2)'
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Cheung Kin Chung (2)案中擔任法官，但未提及具體職位或法律原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳美玲法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Re A HCMP2728/2017案中擔任法官，闡述公開聆訊相關法律原則。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 王浩鏘
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKMagC
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區裁判法院
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就被告人王浩鏘於2022年8月28日至2023年1月5日期間在香港透過LIHKG和Facebook發布具煽動意圖的訊息提出刑事訴訟，指控其犯有作出一項或多項具煽動意圖的作為罪。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 入獄5個月
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 定罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告認罪。根據案情，法庭認為被告在社交平台上發布煽動性內容，涉及多個方面，包括對中央、香港特區政府及警務處的藐視或離叛，鼓勵非法集會和暴力行為等。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 判刑 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告人被判入獄5個月。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及被告人王浩鏘在香港透過LIHKG和Facebook發布煽動性內容，指控其犯有作出一項或多項具煽動意圖的作為罪。法庭認為被告在社交平台上發布煽動性內容，包括藐視或離叛中央及香港特區政府、鼓勵非法集會和暴力行為等，認定其構成犯罪。法庭根據案情評估證據，認為被告有計劃地在兩個平台持續發佈煽動性訊息，影響力雖不算大規模但具潛在危機。最終，法庭判處被告人入獄5個月，以阻嚇並防止類似行為再次發生。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 主任裁判官羅德泉
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審裁判官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司高級檢控官李庭偉
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表香港特別行政區出庭的律政司代表。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 勞超傑律師事務所延聘蘇信恩大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 為被告人提供法律代表。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff: []
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 李樹銘
|
||||||
|
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_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
香港特別行政區就被告人李樹銘於2024年5月3日至12月13日期間，在灣仔區公眾行人天橋的升降機門上塗鴉，涉及多項刑事損壞及煽動罪，向被告人提出訴訟。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 刑事損壞罪
|
||||||
|
- 煽動罪
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 刑事損壞罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告人被判監3個月。理由包括：被告人在公眾地方塗鴉，內容涉及詆毀國家領導人、咒罵中共政權等，但考慮到所造成的損壞相對輕微，量刑起點為4個半月，被告人認罪後減至3個月。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 煽動罪 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 被告人被判監8個月又8星期。理由包括：被告人的塗鴉內容涉及挑戰中央政權和鼓吹台灣獨立，危害國家安全，量刑起點為12個月，考慮到被告人的適時認罪後減至8個月又8星期。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及被告人李樹銘在灣仔區公眾行人天橋的升降機門上塗鴉，觸犯刑事損壞罪及煽動罪。法庭根據證據評估和法律分析，認定被告人在公眾地方塗鴉內容涉及詆毀國家領導人、咒罵中共政權等，判其刑事損壞罪監禁3個月；因塗鴉內容挑戰中央政權和鼓吹台灣獨立，被判煽動罪監禁8個月又8星期。法庭考慮了被告人的工作態度良好及無前科等因素，但強調維護國家安全的重要性，從而作出上述判決。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 總裁判官蘇惠德
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審裁判官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司檢控官楊澄
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表香港特別行政區出庭檢控。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 當值律師服務延聘關文渭大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 代表被告人李樹銘進行辯護。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 章錦城
|
||||||
|
- 何仿嫻
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- International Resort Developments Limited
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
章錦城及何仿嫻就被告International Resort Developments Ltd.於2001年5月銷售時光共享會籍合約提出取消合約並取回已付訂金的申索。被告則反申索要求支付過期未付會籍供
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 取消合約
|
||||||
|
- 取回已付訂金
|
||||||
|
- 支付過期未付會籍供款
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 合約是否不合情理 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭裁定申索人與被告之間的合約是不合情理，主要理由包括議價地位不平等、合同文件複雜難以理解、對消費者不利且缺乏保障、未獲獨立意見及高壓銷售手法等。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 退款金額 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 勝訴。法庭判令被告須返還申索人已付的35,500元，並支付利息及訟費共1,000元。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >
|
||||||
|
章錦城及何仿嫻因被告International Resort Developments Limited在2001年5月銷售時光共享會籍合約而提出取消合約並取回已付訂金的申索，被告則反申索要求支付過期未付會籍供款。法庭裁定合約不合情理，主要理由包括議價地位不平等、合同文件複雜難以理解、對消費者不利且缺乏保障、未獲獨立意見及高壓銷售手法等（第26-42段）。根據《不合情理合約條例》，法庭裁定被告須返還申索人已付的35,500元，並支付利息及訟費共1,000元（第33、35段）。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彭中屏審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 章錦城
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一申索人，參與案件的自然人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 何仿嫻
|
||||||
|
reason: 第二申索人，參與案件的自然人。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: International Resort Developments Limited
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人，涉案公司。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Club La Costa
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人的推銷對象之一，涉及渡假屋計劃。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: RCI
|
||||||
|
reason: 與Club La Costa合作的美國公司，提供住宿交換服務。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: EBS Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: 提及的英國公司，涉及渡假屋安排。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CLC Developments Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人的總公司之一，涉及推銷時光共享會籍。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Destinations Club
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人銷售的渡假會會籍計劃。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Destinations Asia Pacific Club
|
||||||
|
reason: 提及的組織，與RCI相關。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Well Coronet Ltd
|
||||||
|
reason: 提及的組織，與RCI相關。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Director General of Fair Trading
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23中擔任主筆法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第34段引用其判詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hang Seng Credit Card Ltd.
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Hang Seng Credit Card Ltd. v Tsang Nga Lee HCA13228/1999案中擔任法官，闡述不合情理合約條例的應用。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -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
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
莫如柏就彩暉花園業主立案法團及港深聯合物業管理有限公司在2010年3月31日未按金存於彩暉花園業主立案法團導致不能轉移管理費按金及公用電錶按金提出損害賠償申索。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 損害賠償
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 剔除申索人對兩名被告人的申索 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭基於「已經裁判之事，不再受理」原則及小額錢債審裁處條例第25條，認為申索人就相同的訴訟因由多次向兩名被告人提出訴訟屬於無理纏擾。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
莫如柏因2010年彩暉花園業主立案法團未存入按金導致不能轉移管理費按金及公用電錶按金，向港深聯合物業管理有限公司提出損害賠償申索。法庭駁回申索，理由為申索人曾多次就相同訴因向兩名被告提出訴訟，違反「已經裁判之事，不再受理」原則及小額錢債審裁處條例第25條關於無理纏擾的規定。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 麥國昌審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 楊佩雄
|
||||||
|
reason: 第一及第二被告人的代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周紹和主任審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在SCTC22975/12案中撤銷申索人針對第1被告人的申索，並在SCTC7327/13案中撤銷申索人針對恒益的申索。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 李家樂暫委審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在SCTC20189/13案中撤銷申索人的申索。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周家明法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 駁回申索人針對原訟庭的上訴許可申請。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 楊振權法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在霍兆榮及香港特別行政區案 [HCA21094/98, 3/6/1999] 中引用「已經裁判之事，不再受理」的原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 朱芬齡法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在陳世鳳與謝偉志/立德製衣廠案 [HCA1660/2002, 8/7/2005] 中引用「已經裁判之事，不再受理」的原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 彩暉花園業主立案法團
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案場所管理機構。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 港深聯合物業管理有限公司
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案單位當時的管理公司。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- 鄭賜龍
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 醫院管理局
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
鄭賜龍就其父親於1996年在博愛醫院因燃點蚊香導致死亡事件向醫院管理局提出訴訟，但已超出訴訟時限而被剔除申索。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 訴訟時限超期
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申索人之申索是否超出訴訟時限 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 駁回。法庭認為第28條的條文規定並沒有對申索人造成損害，他有充份時間及機會在訴訟時限內提出訴訟，只是他沒有把握，而把時間用在投訴方面。若果本席行使第30（1）條的權力凌駕訴訟時限，則對被告人造成嚴重舉證上的困難，對被告人造成不公平情況。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 申索人之申索是否應剔除 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 剔除。由於申索人的訴訟已經超越訴訟時限，法庭決定剔除申索人的申索案。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
鄭賜龍就其父親1996年在博愛醫院因燃點蚊香導致死亡事件向醫院管理局提出訴訟，但已超出訴訟時限而被剔除申索。法庭認為第28條的條文規定並沒有對申索人造成損害，他有充份時間及機會在訴訟時限內提出訴訟，只是他沒有把握，而把時間用在投訴方面。若果本席行使第30（1）條的權力凌駕訴訟時限，則對被告人造成嚴重舉證上的困難，對被告人造成不公平情況。因此，法庭駁回申索人之申索是否超出訴訟時限的主張，但剔除其申索案。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 麥國昌審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 鄭賜龍
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人，父親鄭慈游在博愛醫院去世，提出疏忽導致死亡的申索。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 醫院管理局
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人，被指責在院內燃點蚊香導致死者死亡。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陸啟康法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Tang Kwok Wah v HKSAR [2019] HKCFA 23案中擔任主筆法官，闡述舉證責任原則，本案第10段引用其判詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 博愛醫院
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案場所及被告人的下属机构之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳寶芝女士
|
||||||
|
reason: 曾向申訴專員公署提交陳述書的醫護人員，但未提供相關口供。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- 律政司司長
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
無家者（熊達富等）就律政司司長在通州街公園清場行動中移走並棄置其個人財物而蒙受損失，向律政司司長提出損害賠償申索。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 金錢上損失
|
||||||
|
- 象徵式賠償
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 署方作為非自願托管者是否已經行使合理程度嘅謹慎 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 敗訴。法庭認為署方未能喺知會無家者認領失物嘅議題上，稱得上負起咗謹慎責任，並未達到法律嘅要求。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 各申索人蒙受金錢損失 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 部分勝訴。法庭裁定各申索人未能成功舉證證明其他財物被棄掉及其價值，但對寢具被棄掉的损失予以确认，并判给每名申索人100港元作为赔偿。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 訟費安排 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 與訟各方各自負責自己嘅訟費。法庭認為被告方毋須支付申索方訟費。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及无家者（熊达富等）因律政司司长在通州街公园清场行动中移走并弃置其个人财物而提起的损害赔偿诉讼。法庭认为，署方未能在通知无家者认领失物方面尽到合理的谨慎责任，因此败诉。法庭指出，尽管部分申索人未能证明其他财物的价值，但确认寝具被弃置的事实，并判给每名申索人100港元作为赔偿。法庭还裁定与讼各方各自负责自己的诉讼费用。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林希維審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 馮庭碩資深大律師
|
||||||
|
reason: 在Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd HCA 1734/2009案中擔任法官，闡述相關原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳彥柏督察
|
||||||
|
reason: 負責今次行動嘅警方指揮官，提供證詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 王先利先生
|
||||||
|
reason: 康文署公園經理，提供證詞。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司司長
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告方，涉案政府部門。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 熊達富
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 劉嘉曦
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 周雄光
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳大發
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳志榮
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 阮少碧
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳志堅
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人之一。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳仲賢
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 黃汝凝
|
||||||
|
reason: 被告人代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳衛東
|
||||||
|
reason: 申索人代表律師。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 康樂文化事務署
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案場所通州街公園的管理機構。
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKSCT
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區小額錢債審裁處
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
熊達富等人針對律政司司長在小額錢債審裁處的裁決提出覆核，認為法庭未恰當地評定賠償金額及未查問精神困擾賠償。
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- 賠償金額
|
||||||
|
- 精神困擾賠償
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: 維持原來在2022年3月29日的裁決/命令，各申索人的覆核申請被撤銷 (責任問題)
|
||||||
|
result: 維持。法庭認為各申索人未能提供足夠證據支持其主張，且未有履行提出主張的一方有責任拿出證據證明其主張的普通法原則。
|
||||||
|
- charge: 不作任何訟費命令 (損失範圍)
|
||||||
|
result: 無結果。與訟各方均沒有提出訟費要求。
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
本案涉及熊達富等人對律政司司長在小額錢債審裁處裁決提出的覆核申請，主要爭議焦點為賠償金額及精神困擾賠償。法庭認為各申索人未能提供足夠證據支持其主張，且未履行提出主張的一方有責任拿出證據證明其主張的普通法原則。法庭引用了《McGregor
|
||||||
|
on Damages》、陳振鴻法官及吳美玲暫委法官的判例，強調審裁官在查問相關事宜時並非絕對責任，須視乎案件情況和爭議點。最終裁定維持原判，各申索人的覆核申請被撤銷，不作任何訟費命令。
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 林希維審裁官
|
||||||
|
reason: 本案主審審裁官，負責認定事實及裁決。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 陳振鴻法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在謝林及其他二十位訴陳德偉（經營偉仕工程公司）[7]一案中擔任高等法院原訟法庭法官，闡述審裁官的調查責任原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 吳美玲暫委法官
|
||||||
|
reason: 在陳啟生，梁鳳儀經營生記工程公司訴Yiu Chor Lin[9]一案中擔任高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官，闡述審裁官的調查責任原則。
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: 律政司司長
|
||||||
|
reason: 涉案政府部門，為被告人。
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue