HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS

The 2nd Order was lawful: the consultant report and observed deterioration (mortar pointing and inadequate factors of safety) provided a proper cause under s27A for the BA's opinion. Appointment of an authorised person alone did not satisfy the obligation to carry out the specified investigations and reports,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellants: LIEM HUNG and 8 others
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 1999
Case Number
HCMA554/1999
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence in Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Failure to Comply With Statutory Order, Section 27 a Buildings Ordinance, Validity of Administrative Order, Reasonable Excuse, Sentencing
Source Language
en
Buildings Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Failure to Comply With Statutory Order Section 27 a Buildings Ordinance Validity of Administrative Order Reasonable Excuse Sentencing

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LIEM HUNG and 8 others

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence in Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 27A order was valid
  2. 2 Whether the wall was an earth‑retaining structure
  3. 3 Whether there was a cause rendering the structure liable to become dangerous within s27A

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Order was lawful: the consultant report and observed deterioration (mortar pointing and inadequate factors of safety) provided a proper cause under s27A for the BA's opinion. Appointment of an authorised person alone did not satisfy the obligation to carry out the specified investigations and reports, particularly after the BA explicitly rejected the AP's views and requested compliance; appellants failed to take further reasonable steps and therefore had no reasonable excuse. Convictions were upheld; sentence was adjusted to reflect proper apportionment among co‑owners.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions of nine appellants for failing to comply with the s27A order upheld
  • Sentence varied: each appellant to be fined HKD 4,722