HKSAR v. CNT SECURITY CO LTD
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CNT SECURITY CO LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 June 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment and Orders (post Judgment Compensation Determination)
- Case number
- HCMA887/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 June 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment and Orders (post Judgment Compensation Determination)
- Case number
- HCMA887/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court ordered that the appellant company must pay Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li the sum of $275 in respect of each of the four summonses, and that any greater payment already made pursuant to the magistrate's order must be returned to the appellant company.
Court disposition
Appeal determined with substitution of the magistrate's compensation amount; payment ordered in favour of MPF trustee and restitution of any excess
Orders
- Order that CNT Security Company Limited pay Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li the sum of HKD 275 in respect of each of the four summonses (total of four separate payments).
- Order that if CNT Security Company Limited has already paid a greater amount to Bank Consortium Trust Limited pursuant to the magistrate's order, the excess shall be returned to CNT Security Company Limited.
- Corrigenda: typographical corrections to witness references in the judgment (PW numbering and references to Mr Li).
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Liu Yuen Ming, SGC of Department of JusticeCNT SECURITY COMPANY LIMITED
Appellant Counsel: Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, instructed by Messrs Leung, Chan & PangAmounts and remedies
- Amount Ordered Per Summons: HKD 275
- Magistrate's Earlier Amount Per Summons: HKD 421.75
- Number of Summonses: 4
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment and Orders (post Judgment Compensation Determination)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate amount of contributions payable to trustees under Mandatory Provident Fund
- 02
Whether excess payments previously made should be returned
- 03
Interpretation and variation of magistrate's orders in light of appellate judgment
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant submitted that the correct amount payable in respect of each summons is $275 and that any excess already paid should be returned.
- Respondent
- Respondent agreed the proper amount payable for each summons is $275 and did not oppose return of any excess payments.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485)
Employers are required to make contributions to employees' Mandatory Provident Fund accounts in accordance with the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance
- 02
High Court appellate jurisdiction and general common law principle
An appellate court may make or vary orders made by a magistrate and direct restitution of sums paid in excess where appropriate
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court ordered that the appellant company must pay Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li the sum of $275 in respect of each of the four summonses, and that any greater payment already made pursuant to the magistrate's order must be returned to the appellant company.
Obiter and limits
- Corrigenda made to the judgment to correct typographical errors in witness numbering (references to PW1/PW2).
- Parties were invited to make written submissions on quantum and agreed the sum of $275 per summons.
Court disposition
Appeal determined with substitution of the magistrate's compensation amount; payment ordered in favour of MPF trustee and restitution of any excess
- Order that CNT Security Company Limited pay Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li the sum of HKD 275 in respect of each of the four summonses (total of four separate payments).
- Order that if CNT Security Company Limited has already paid a greater amount to Bank Consortium Trust Limited pursuant to the magistrate's order, the excess shall be returned to CNT Security Company Limited.
- Corrigenda: typographical corrections to witness references in the judgment (PW numbering and references to Mr Li).
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 22 June 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 22 June 2007
bjbj HCMA887/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM KTS 13906 13911 OF 2005) ---------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and CNT SECURITY COMPANY LIMITED Appellant ( is matter on 31 May 2007, the parties were invited to make written submissions to the court as to the appropriate amounts to be stipulated in the orders of compensation in respect of contributions to be made by the appellant company to the trustees of Mr s Mandatory Provident fund, namely Bank Consortium Trust Limited. The magistrate had made orders that the appellant company pay the sum of $421.75 in respect of each of the four respective summonses concerning Mr Li. The parties are agreed and they have confirmed that in court today that in light of the judgment of this court, the sum payable by the appellant company to Bank Consortium Trust Limited in respect of each of the summonses is $275. I make an order against the appellant company in favour of Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li for that amount on each of these four summonses. If the appellant company has already made a greater payment to Bank Consortium Trust Limited in accordance with the order of the magistrate, the amount in excess obviously is to be returned to the appellant company. Corrigenda
AUTONUMOUT Mr Liu has drawn the attention of the court to some typographical errors in the judgment and Mr McCoy has no objection to the corrections that are sought being made. References in the judgment at paragraph 6 to Mr Ho as PW2 and Mr Li as PW3 are errors for PW1 and PW2 respectively. References to Mr Ho at paragraph 40, i.e. M, N and P-R are made in error and should be references, as is apparent from line K of that paragraph to Mr Li. (Michael Lunn) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Liu Yuen Ming, SGC of Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, instructed by Messrs Leung, Chan & Pang, for the Appellant
PAGE -
PAGE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ "5Ld !tdO ~Qb]J ~Qb] !tdO & 6" ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.