RE TAM WAI HO

RE TAM WAI HO

The videos, though promotional of Dr Tam, were not political advertisements when broadcast before he declared candidacy and did not breach the Broadcasting Ordinance; however, availability of the same videos on his websites during the election period converted them into election advertisements subject to Regulations s.102 and election expenses rules, and only the actual licence fee of HKD 20,000 paid for website use during the election period was an election expense that needed to be declared; the admitted omissions were inadvertent and not corrupt or material, so the election result stands and petition must be dismissed.

Citation
RE TAM WAI HO
Parties
Petitioner: Mok Charles Peter; 1st Respondent: Tam Wai Ho; 2nd Respondent: Vincent Fung Hao-Yin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2009
Case Number
HCMP202/2009
Procedural Posture
Election Petition and Miscellaneous Proceedings (leg Co Election) / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed; election upheld; leave granted to respondent to rectify Return of Expenses
Legal Topics
Election Expenses, Election Advertisement, Return of Election Expenses, Provision of Election Materials to Returning Officer, Alleged Corrupt and Illegal Conduct, Broadcasting Regulation Compliance
Source Language
EN
Election Law Campaign Finance Broadcasting Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Election Expenses Election Advertisement Return of Election Expenses +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mok Charles Peter

Petitioner

Tam Wai Ho

1st Respondent

Vincent Fung Hao-Yin

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition and Miscellaneous Proceedings (leg Co Election) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-election videos amounted to political/election advertisements
  2. 2 Whether candidate was required to furnish copies of videos to Returning Officer under Regulations s.102
  3. 3 Whether costs associated with the videos constitute election expenses and must be included in Return

Ratio Decidendi

The videos, though promotional of Dr Tam, were not political advertisements when broadcast before he declared candidacy and did not breach the Broadcasting Ordinance; however, availability of the same videos on his websites during the election period converted them into election advertisements subject to Regulations s.102 and election expenses rules, and only the actual licence fee of HKD 20,000 paid for website use during the election period was an election expense that needed to be declared; the admitted omissions were inadvertent and not corrupt or material, so the election result stands and petition must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; election upheld; leave granted to respondent to rectify Return of Expenses

Orders

  • Petition dismissed and Dr Tam declared validly elected for IT Functional Constituency
  • Leave granted to Tam to correct his Return of Expenses to include the admitted miscellaneous items