Editing Judgment (law) (section)

==== Hong Kong ====

In ''Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David'', the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]] stated that 'litigants are entitled to have their cases decided with reasonable promptitude'. The Court considered that the 'extraordinary' and 'inordinate' delay of 30 months which the trial judge ([[High Court (Hong Kong)#Recorders|Madam Recorder]] [[Gladys Li]] SC) took in handing down her reserved judgment was 'wholly excessive' and 'extremely regrettable', and recognised that 'it may lead to a denial of justice as a Judge's memory of the evidence, the witnesses, the submissions and the trial itself may fade with time', but nonetheless upheld her decision as it was 'objectively sound'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Mak Kang Hoi v Ho Yuk Wah David|list=FACV|number=20|year=2006|id=56559}}, reported at (2007) 10 HKCFAR 552</ref>

Similarly, in ''Dr Yip Chi Him Roger v Lee Kwok Leung'', the trial judge (Mr Justice Louis Chan) delivered his reserved judgment over 32 months after the trial. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] held that 'notwithstanding the regrettable delay in giving judgment, we come to the firm and clear view that the Judge gave cogent and adequate reasons for his findings and there is no error of law or facts in his findings', and dismissed the appeal.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Dr Yip Chi Him Roger v Lee Kwok Leung|list=CACV|number=174|year=2015|id=106772}}</ref>

Delays have occurred in a number of [[Judicial review in Hong Kong|judicial review]] cases. For example, in ''Data Key Ltd v Director of Lands'', ''Lui Yuet Tin v Commissioner for Transport'' and ''DI v Director of Immigration'', Mr Justice Au handed down his reserved judgment 26 to 28 months after the hearing.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Data Key Ltd v Director of Lands|list=HCAL|number=164|year=2014|id=113908}}, reported at [2018] 2 HKLRD 158</ref><ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Lui Yuet Tin v Commissioner for Transport|list=HCAL|number=42|year=2014|id=114910}}</ref><ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=DI v Director of Immigration|list=HCAL|number=135|year=2014|id=112810}}</ref>

The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] has on occasion delivered its reasons for judgment a significant period of time after the hearing. For example, in ''China Medical Technologies v Samson Tsang Tak Yung'', the reasons for judgment, as well as the reserved decision as to costs, were delivered by [[Aarif Barma|Mr Justice Barma, JA]] after a delay of 34 months.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=China Medical Technologies v Samson Tsang Tak Yung|list=CACV|number=197|year=2014|id=113864}}</ref>

Similar delays have also been encountered in cases in the [[District Court (Hong Kong)|District Court]]. For example, in ''Leung Chi Wang v Leung Yui Shing'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Richard Leung),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Leung Chi Wang v Leung Yui Shing|list=DCCJ|number=3435|year=2012|id=109138}}</ref> ''Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Simon Lui),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Kan Yay Shan v Mo You Mut|list=DCMP|number=1886|year=2011|id=108933}}</ref> ''Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Timon Shum),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Golden Field Glass Works v Yeung Chun Keung|list=DCCJ|number=1942|year=2012|id=108933}}</ref> and ''Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th Floor, Kapok Mansion'' (decided by Deputy District Judge Samson Hung),<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Han Mei Fang v All Occupiers of Flat F, 6th Floor, Kapok Mansion|list=DCMP|number=3071|year=2012|id=112486}}</ref> judgment was handed down between 31 and 33 months after the trial.

In ''Welltus v Fornton Knitting'', after a trial which lasted 12 days, the trial judge ([[High Court (Hong Kong)|Deputy High Court Judge]] Ian Carlson) took over 10 months to hand down his reserved judgment. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] held that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and stated that 'the failure to deal with [one of the critical issues was] probably attributable to the delay in the preparation of the judgment'. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the decision and ordered a re-trial before another judge of the [[Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)|Court of First Instance]].<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=Welltus Limited v Fornton Knitting Company Limited|list=CACV|number=268|year=2011|id=86174}}, reported at [2013] 5 HKC 106</ref>

In ''HKSAR v Yip Kim Po'', after a criminal trial lasting over one year, the trial judge (His Honour Judge Kevin Browne) gave Reasons for Verdict with 1,753 paragraphs spanning 465 pages. The [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] stated that the 'sheer length of the judge's Reasons for Verdict brings with it considerable difficulties for the appeal courts and any other newcomer to the case in trying to unravel the relevant evidence and identify the real issues at trial.  An unduly lengthy set of Reasons also creates problems for the judge himself in focussing on the essential issues at trial so as to explain, clearly, concisely and expediently, why he came to the decision he did'. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal endorsed the remarks made by the [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]], and stated that 'Whilst a judge should keep a record of the evidence and submissions, it is not the function of a judgment to be that record. Instead, the primary purpose of a judgment is: to identify the ultimate issues in the case; to set out, qualitatively by reference to the evidence that is accepted or rejected, the primary facts which the judge finds; to relate those findings to the factual issues in the case; to show how any inference has been drawn; to make the necessary findings of fact; to identify and apply the appropriate legal principles; and, ultimately, to make the appropriate dispositive orders'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=HKSAR v Yip Kim Po|list=FAMC|number=12|year=2013|id=92138}}, reported at (2014) 17 HKCFAR 202</ref>

In ''HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd'', at the end of the hearing of the appeal in the [[Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)|Court of First Instance]], Mr Justice [[Pang Kin-kee]] immediately delivered an oral decision allowing the appeal, with written reasons to be handed down at a later date. 7 months later, the Judge handed down the written reasons for judgment dismissing the appeal, a result which was inconsistent with the oral decision announced at the end of the hearing. After the appellant contacted the Judge's clerk, later the same day the Judge retracted the 'incorrect version' and delivered the 'correct version' of the written reasons for judgment. The correction was made before the court order and record had been perfected. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal stated that 'It must be reiterated and strongly emphasised that judges at all levels of court have a duty to deliver judgments within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the hearing. Where an oral decision has been given of the result, with reasons to follow later, it is incumbent upon the judge to deliver the reasons within a reasonable time. This is important not only for the parties, but it is essential to the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice. In the present case, the delay of seven-and-a-half months was unjustified'. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal further stated that 'In handing down the 1st written judgment purporting to set out his reasons for "dismissing" the appeal on 15 May 2008, the Judge must have forgotten about his earlier oral decision allowing the appeal and omitted to check the file. The delay in preparing his reasons must have contributed to this oversight'.<ref>{{Cite Hong Kong case|litigants=HKSAR v Tin's Label Factory Ltd|list=FACC|number=5|year=2008|id=63525}}, reported at (2008) 11 HKCFAR 637</ref>