ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

A summons issued by the CASEMAN computer system without a signature or seal was not invalid: absence of signature/seal did not affect the substance of the prescribed form and s37(1) preserves such deviations; the presumption of regularity applies and is only displaced by prima facie evidence to the contrary, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Parties
Appellant: Attorney General; Respondent: Hip Hing Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 May 1994
Case Number
HCMA754/1993
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (case Stated to Court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Reserved Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Validity of Summons, Computer‑generated Summons, Presumption of Regularity, Limitation Period for Laying Information, Form Requirements Under Magistrates (forms) Rule
Source Language
en
Criminal Procedure Magistrates Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Validity of Summons Computer‑generated Summons Presumption of Regularity Limitation Period for Laying Information +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Appellant

Hip Hing Construction Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (case Stated to Court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Reserved Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a summons issued by a computer process without a signature or seal is invalid
  2. 2 Whether there was no or no sufficient evidence that the information was properly laid and who bears the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

A summons issued by the CASEMAN computer system without a signature or seal was not invalid: absence of signature/seal did not affect the substance of the prescribed form and s37(1) preserves such deviations; the presumption of regularity applies and is only displaced by prima facie evidence to the contrary, which was absent; the magistrate erred in holding the summons invalid and in finding no sufficient evidence that the information was properly laid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Magistrate's conclusions that the summons was invalid and that there was no or no sufficient evidence the information was properly laid set aside