HKSAR v.LUEN BONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

HKSAR v.LUEN BONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

The Court held the Magistrate did not err: admissibility and use of TPB guidelines and applications were lawful; credible and objective prosecution evidence proved the Site was used as open storage (not a public car park) and appellants failed to establish the statutory defence; sentencing and costs orders were within discretion; accordingly all appeals against conviction, sentence and costs were dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v.LUEN BONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: LUEN BONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (聯邦物業發展有限公司); 2nd Appellant: TANG WING MING (鄧永明); 3rd Appellant: TANG FAT CHEUNG (鄧發祥); 4th Appellant: TANG HING CHAU (鄧興就); 5th Appellant: TANG LIM KWONG (鄧廉光); 6th Appellant: TANG KUT YIU; 7th Appellant: TANG HON MAN (鄧漢民); 8th Appellant: TANG LUEN HING (鄧聯兄); 9th Appellant: LEE LAI YING (李麗英); 10th Appellant: WU CHENG ZAI (吳仁財); 11th Appellant: TANG YING IP (OR YIP) (鄧英業)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2014
Case Number
HCMA276/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Magistrates' Court Convictions Under Town Planning Ordinance / Judgment on Appeal by Court of First Instance
Outcome
All appeals against conviction, sentence and costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Enforcement Notices (s.23 Tpo), Admissibility of Planning Guidelines, Interpretation of Outline Zoning Plan, Sentencing and Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Town Planning Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Development Enforcement Notices (s.23 Tpo) Admissibility of Planning Guidelines Interpretation of Outline Zoning Plan Sentencing and Costs Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LUEN BONG PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (聯邦物業發展有限公司)

1st Appellant

TANG WING MING (鄧永明)

2nd Appellant

TANG FAT CHEUNG (鄧發祥)

3rd Appellant

TANG HING CHAU (鄧興就)

4th Appellant

TANG LIM KWONG (鄧廉光)

5th Appellant

TANG KUT YIU

6th Appellant

TANG HON MAN (鄧漢民)

7th Appellant

TANG LUEN HING (鄧聯兄)

8th Appellant

LEE LAI YING (李麗英)

9th Appellant

WU CHENG ZAI (吳仁財)

10th Appellant

TANG YING IP (OR YIP) (鄧英業)

11th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Magistrates' Court Convictions Under Town Planning Ordinance / Judgment on Appeal by Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Site was used as 'open storage' (unauthorised development) or as a 'public car park' (permitted use)
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of Town Planning Board guidelines and section 16 applications (P65–P69, P70–P73)
  3. 3 Credibility and weight of prosecution and defence witnesses (especially PW2 and DW4)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Magistrate did not err: admissibility and use of TPB guidelines and applications were lawful; credible and objective prosecution evidence proved the Site was used as open storage (not a public car park) and appellants failed to establish the statutory defence; sentencing and costs orders were within discretion; accordingly all appeals against conviction, sentence and costs were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All appeals against conviction, sentence and costs dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction dismissed
  • Appeals against sentence dismissed