LAM KWONG YU v. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE TOURISM SUBSECTOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE SUBSECTOR ELECTIONS 2006 AND OTHERS

LAM KWONG YU v. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE TOURISM SUBSECTOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE SUBSECTOR ELECTIONS 2006 AND OTHERS

The $1,800 payment was a retrospective reimbursement for voluntary campaign assistance and therefore constituted an election expense under s2; it could not be deleted from the return but, because the payment was made from inadvertence and without bad faith and the meeting itself was not an election meeting, the court allowed correction by re‑description of the item under s40(4). Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
LAM KWONG YU v. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE TOURISM SUBSECTOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE SUBSECTOR ELECTIONS 2006 AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant / Candidate: Lam Kwong Yu; Respondents: Respondents
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2007
Case Number
HCMP181/2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under Elections (corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 / Hearing and Judgment on Application to Correct Election Return Under S40(4)
Outcome
Application partly allowed: deletion refused; permitted correction to re‑describe the $1,800 item; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Election Expenses, Corrupt Conduct, Statutory Interpretation, Correction of Election Return, Costs
Source Language
EN
Electoral Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Procedural Law Election Expenses Corrupt Conduct Statutory Interpretation Correction of Election Return +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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Kwong Yu

Applicant / Candidate

Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Elections (corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap. 554 / Hearing and Judgment on Application to Correct Election Return Under S40(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the $1,800 payment was an election expense
  2. 2 Whether the error in the election return was due to inadvertence or reasonable cause and not bad faith under s40(4)
  3. 3 Whether the item could be deleted from the return or only re‑described

Ratio Decidendi

The $1,800 payment was a retrospective reimbursement for voluntary campaign assistance and therefore constituted an election expense under s2; it could not be deleted from the return but, because the payment was made from inadvertence and without bad faith and the meeting itself was not an election meeting, the court allowed correction by re‑description of the item under s40(4). Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: deletion refused; permitted correction to re‑describe the $1,800 item; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Applicant is permitted to amend the description of the $1,800 item in the Return to: "Retrospective reimbursement of expenses for entertaining Mr Chan Bo Wah in order to show the applicant's gratitude for his assistance as a volunteer in the applicant's election campaign namely, by showing the applicant the way to...
  • Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of these proceedings.