HKSAR v. SUNAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. SUNAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER

No properly directed juror, giving a Hong Kong shopper a moment's thought, could conclude on the evidence that the label 'Daniel Hechter, Paris' would be taken as indicating the place of manufacture; it denotes the fashion house/design/quality control and, given modern globalised manufacturing, would not reasonably be taken as indicating manufacture in Paris or France, so there was no case to answer and the magistrate's dismissal was upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. SUNAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellant: HKSAR; 1st Respondent: SUNAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: SHINE NING GARMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 February 2008
Case Number
HCMA939/2007
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (case Stated) Under Trade Descriptions Ordinance Cap 362 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; magistrate's finding that there was no case to answer is upheld
Legal Topics
Misleading Labels, Country of Origin, Labelling, Standard of Jury Direction, Case Stated Appeal
Source Language
EN
Trade Descriptions Ordinance Consumer Protection Criminal Law Misleading Labels Country of Origin Labelling Standard of Jury Direction Case Stated Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Appellant

SUNAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

1st Respondent

SHINE NING GARMENTS LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (case Stated) Under Trade Descriptions Ordinance Cap 362 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the label 'Daniel Hechter, Paris' is an indication of the place of manufacture of the shirts
  2. 2 Whether a properly directed juror could find that a Hong Kong shopper would take the label as indicating place of manufacture
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution established a case to answer under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

No properly directed juror, giving a Hong Kong shopper a moment's thought, could conclude on the evidence that the label 'Daniel Hechter, Paris' would be taken as indicating the place of manufacture; it denotes the fashion house/design/quality control and, given modern globalised manufacturing, would not reasonably be taken as indicating manufacture in Paris or France, so there was no case to answer and the magistrate's dismissal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; magistrate's finding that there was no case to answer is upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondents to have their costs to be taxed if not agreed