CHIANG LAI WAN v. TANG SIU TONG AND ANOTHER

CHIANG LAI WAN v. TANG SIU TONG AND ANOTHER

The Regulation's s.56 is a mandatory prescription for marking ballots in the special functional constituencies: a single preference must be indicated by the Arabic numeral '1'; ballots marked only with a tick do not comply and must be disallowed, whereas a ballot bearing the required numeral (even if accompanied by an unnecessary tick) may be valid; counterfoils attached to two ballots did not, on the material before the court, enable identification by candidates or the public and were not material. Applying these conclusions, three ballots (nos.1,2 and 4) were invalidated, producing a 23-23 tie and the court determined that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected but could not declare...

Citation
CHIANG LAI WAN v. TANG SIU TONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Chiang Lai-Wan; 1st Respondent: Tang Siu Tong; 2nd Respondent: Lai Wing-Kun, Henry
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 September 1998
Case Number
HCMP2575/1998
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Under Legislative Council Ordinance S.61 / Trial (judgment Handed Down)
Outcome
1st Respondent determined not to have been duly elected; election result becomes a tie (23-23); court unable to declare any other person duly elected; further resolution may be required under LCO s.50(6).
Legal Topics
Ballot Validity, Vote Counting, Preferential Voting, Ultra Vires Challenge, Secret Ballot
Source Language
EN
Election Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Ballot Validity Vote Counting Preferential Voting Ultra Vires Challenge Secret Ballot

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiang Lai-Wan

Petitioner

Tang Siu Tong

1st Respondent

Lai Wing-Kun, Henry

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Under Legislative Council Ordinance S.61 / Trial (judgment Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ballots marked with ticks instead of Arabic numerals comply with s.56 of the Electoral Procedure Regulation
  2. 2 Whether ballots bearing additional marks (ticks plus numerals) or attached counterfoils render the ballots void under s.80 and s.49(15) of the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether ss.56(3) and 80(1)(h) of the Regulation are ultra vires or inconsistent with s.50 of the Legislative Council Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The Regulation's s.56 is a mandatory prescription for marking ballots in the special functional constituencies: a single preference must be indicated by the Arabic numeral '1'; ballots marked only with a tick do not comply and must be disallowed, whereas a ballot bearing the required numeral (even if accompanied by an unnecessary tick) may be valid; counterfoils attached to two ballots did not, on the material before the court, enable identification by candidates or the public and were not material. Applying these conclusions, three ballots (nos.1,2 and 4) were invalidated, producing a 23-23 tie and the court determined that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected but could not declare...

Court Disposition

1st Respondent determined not to have been duly elected; election result becomes a tie (23-23); court unable to declare any other person duly elected; further resolution may be required under LCO s.50(6).

Orders

  • Ballot papers numbered 1, 2 and 4 (each containing a single tick) declared invalid and to be excluded from the count
  • Deduct invalid votes accordingly resulting in each leading candidate having 23 votes (tie)