HKSAR v. WU KOON TAI AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. WU KOON TAI AND OTHERS

Magistrate's factual findings that the site was primarily used for open storage before 5 October 1990 and that storage activity increased materially after 1992 were supported by aerial photographs and witness evidence; material change is a question of actual use not owner labelling, therefore convictions and fines were properly upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. WU KOON TAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: WU KOON TAI; 2nd Appellant: WU KOON LUN; 3rd Appellant: TSE MEE LIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Case Number
HCMA337/1999
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and fines upheld
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Existing User Defence, Material Change of Use, Open Storage Vs Sales Display, Planning Permission
Source Language
EN
Town Planning Criminal Enforcement Notice Existing User Defence Material Change of Use Open Storage Vs Sales Display Planning Permission

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

WU KOON TAI

1st Appellant

WU KOON LUN

2nd Appellant

TSE MEE LIN

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether site was used as open storage before 5 October 1990 for purposes of existing user defence under s23(9)
  2. 2 Whether there was a material change in use after 1990 amounting to unauthorised development under s1A
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate misapplied law by failing to evaluate primary purpose or by misweighing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate's factual findings that the site was primarily used for open storage before 5 October 1990 and that storage activity increased materially after 1992 were supported by aerial photographs and witness evidence; material change is a question of actual use not owner labelling, therefore convictions and fines were properly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and fines upheld

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Convictions affirmed