The jury made three key recommendations to the Department of Health on the content of vaccine information pamphlets, such as adding specific examples under the warning to patients with “uncontrolled severe chronic illnesses” against getting vaccinated.

One of the issues before the Court of Final Appeal is whether the right to build small houses, enjoyed by New Territories male indigenous inhabitants, constitutes a “lawful traditional right and interest” protected by Article 40 of the Basic Law. 

Based on a careful examination of all the evidence, the Fishermen Claims Appeal Board ruled that — on a balance of probabilities — the Relevant Vessels spent 10% or more of the time operating in Hong Kong waters during the relevant period from 2009 to 2011.

The Court dismissed the Petitioner’s election petition and held that there was no substance in any of his allegations, chiefly because the Petitioner and his team had left the polling station voluntarily during the relevant time period.

The jury gave the Education Bureau four recommendations, including to conduct an annual inspection of all schools in Hong Kong to ensure compliance with guidelines on dealing with students with health conditions.

The 1st Plaintiff sued for breach of contract in respect of 9 substantial purchase orders and claimed damages equivalent to the full contract prices. After an 8-day trial, the Court only allowed nominal damages as the 1st Plaintiff failed to plead and prove the necessary particulars for the damages sought.

The 1st Plaintiff sued for breach of contract in respect of 9 substantial purchase orders and claimed damages equivalent to the full contract prices. After an 8-day trial, the Court only allowed nominal damages as the 1st Plaintiff failed to plead and prove the necessary particulars for the damages sought.

After an 8-day trial, the learned Magistrate found that the Prosecution had failed to discharge their burden of proof in relation to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants, notwithstanding TV news footages showing their presence. Her Worship also rejected the evidence of the 4th Defendant’s arresting officer as being unreliable.

In light of this ruling, solicitors on record for the respondent in the court below should not be automatically regarded as solicitors for the respondent in the appeal.  A respondent is therefore entitled to withhold instructions to his solicitors in the court below to accept service of the notice of appeal on his behalf. 

The parties are a same-sex couple who, after separation, continued to co-parent their two children. However, the Respondent was not recognised as a parent under Hong Kong law and therefore had no guardianship rights during her former partner’s (the Applicant) lifetime.