The High Court recently ordered the continuation of various injunction orders restraining unnamed defendants from engaging in 'doxxing' directed at judges and judicial officers in Hong Kong, together with their spouses and immediate family members. The court's decision follows an increase in such activity in connection with certain verdicts and sentences in cases where persons have been charged with offences arising out of protests or related public order incidents.
Some eight months after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts officially resumed normal business in mid-September 2020. Normal court registry services resumed from about 28 September 2020, together with the cessation of 'ticketing arrangements', the continuation of enhanced social distancing and the introduction of special queuing arrangements for the registries and accounts offices of the High Court, the District Court, the Family Court and the Lands Tribunal.
The judiciary in Hong Kong recently published a Guidance Note for Case Settlement Conference in Civil Cases in the District Court. The guidance note extends a pilot scheme for facilitating settlement in general civil cases in the District Court. While facilitating the settlement of certain civil disputes is a laudable aim and part of the underlying objectives in the court rules, the guidance note appears to raise more questions than it answers.
The High Court recently dismissed a plaintiff company's application to continue an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendant bank from presenting a winding-up petition against the company. The company claimed that it had already secured the bank's debt and that, therefore, the bank could not demonstrate that it was unable to pay its debts for the purposes of Section 178(1)(a) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32).
In a recent case, a High Court judge dismissed the defendants' application that she recuse herself from a substantive hearing in contempt proceedings. The application was based on what the defendants submitted was a reasonable apprehension of bias ('apparent bias') – in particular, they claimed that in an earlier decision involving the same parties, the judge had prejudged a question of fact that was crucial in the contempt proceedings.