RE MRS TANG

RE MRS TANG

The statutory presumption in s.10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not apply to applications for restraining orders under s.14C; absent that presumption the Commissioner did not adduce sufficient evidence that Mrs. Tang held the bank deposits/property for or on behalf of Mr. Tang; therefore the ex parte restraining order was unjustified and must be revoked, with costs, and the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Citation
RE MRS TANG
Parties
Applicant (third Party Registrant of Property): Yee Po Land Development Co. Ltd.; Respondent (applicant for Restraining Order): Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption (Crown); Suspected Person/subject of Investigation: Tang Wan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 1970
Case Number
DCMP115/1977
Procedural Posture
Restraining Order Application Under Prevention of Bribery Ordinance / Application to Revoke Ex Parte Restraining Order (post‑order Review/revocation)
Outcome
Restraining order revoked with costs and certificate for counsel; revocation to take effect 14 days after the order
Legal Topics
Restraining Order, Statutory Presumption, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Inherent Jurisdiction, Third Party Proprietary Rights
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Administrative Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Restraining Order Statutory Presumption Prevention of Bribery Ordinance +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yee Po Land Development Co. Ltd.

Applicant (third Party Registrant of Property)

Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption (Crown)

Respondent (applicant for Restraining Order)

Tang Wan

Suspected Person/subject of Investigation

Procedural Posture

Restraining Order Application Under Prevention of Bribery Ordinance / Application to Revoke Ex Parte Restraining Order (post‑order Review/revocation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory presumption in s.10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance applies to applications under s.14C for a restraining order
  2. 2 Whether the evidence before the court was sufficient to justify an ex parte restraining order against a third party's proprietary interest
  3. 3 Whether revocation is limited to grounds in s.14D(4)(a) or whether the court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to revoke an ex parte order

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory presumption in s.10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not apply to applications for restraining orders under s.14C; absent that presumption the Commissioner did not adduce sufficient evidence that Mrs. Tang held the bank deposits/property for or on behalf of Mr. Tang; therefore the ex parte restraining order was unjustified and must be revoked, with costs, and the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Court Disposition

Restraining order revoked with costs and certificate for counsel; revocation to take effect 14 days after the order

Orders

  • Restraining Order dated 25 May 1977 revoked with costs and a certificate for counsel for Applicant Company (if scale necessary, on upper scale)
  • Revocation to take effect on the expiration of 14 days from the date of the order