HKSAR v. CHAN KIN‑FUNG, PHIL

HKSAR v. CHAN KIN‑FUNG, PHIL

The appeal is dismissed because the registered correspondence address, as elected and recorded, was properly treated as the registered address for service; the appellant failed to notify the Commissioner for Transport in writing of any change; providing addresses to the police via POL571 did not satisfy the statutory notification requirement; the notice demanding payment sent to the recorded address was therefore effective; the second review was repetitious and failed for the same reasons; and the magistrate did not err in awarding costs against the appellant.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHAN KIN‑FUNG, PHIL
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2015
Case Number
HCMA531/2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Magistrate Review Decisions Under Fixed Penalty (criminal Proceedings) Ordinance Cap 240 / Judgment on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Registered Address and Correspondence Address, Fixed Penalty (criminal Proceedings) Ordinance Cap 240, Reviews Under Magistrates Ordinance Cap 227, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Traffic Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Service of Process Registered Address and Correspondence Address Fixed Penalty (criminal Proceedings) Ordinance Cap 240 Reviews Under Magistrates Ordinance Cap 227 +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Magistrate Review Decisions Under Fixed Penalty (criminal Proceedings) Ordinance Cap 240 / Judgment on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered address for service is the residential address or the correspondence address registered with the Commissioner for Transport
  2. 2 Whether sending POL571 forms to the police and providing an address therein constituted sufficient written notice to change the registered correspondence address
  3. 3 Whether the notice demanding payment was validly served at the registered address

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the registered correspondence address, as elected and recorded, was properly treated as the registered address for service; the appellant failed to notify the Commissioner for Transport in writing of any change; providing addresses to the police via POL571 did not satisfy the statutory notification requirement; the notice demanding payment sent to the recorded address was therefore effective; the second review was repetitious and failed for the same reasons; and the magistrate did not err in awarding costs against the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Costs of 6000 awarded to the respondent