HKSAR v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

HKSAR v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

The court held that the appellant failed to take adequate steps under Regulation 38B(1); the statutory defences in Regulation 38H were not proved on the balance of probabilities; and the claimed common law defence of honest belief/mistake of fact is excluded for these safety strict liability offences—therefore the magistrate's conviction is affirmed.

Citation
HKSAR v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2003
Case Number
HCMA815/2002
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (hcma) From Magistrate Conviction NKS 674/2002
Outcome
Conviction of the appellant affirmed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Statutory Defences, Construction Sites (safety) Regulations, Regulation 38 B, Regulation 38 H, Corporate Attribution of State of Mind, Appeal Against Conviction, Costs
Source Language
EN
Occupational Safety Criminal Law (regulatory Offences) Construction Law Administrative Law Strict Liability Statutory Defences Construction Sites (safety) Regulations Regulation 38 B +4 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal / Appeal to Court of First Instance (hcma) From Magistrate Conviction NKS 674/2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants took adequate steps to prevent falls under Regulation 38B(1)
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defences in Regulation 38H were established on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether a common law defence of honest belief/mistake of fact is available to strict liability safety offences

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to take adequate steps under Regulation 38B(1); the statutory defences in Regulation 38H were not proved on the balance of probabilities; and the claimed common law defence of honest belief/mistake of fact is excluded for these safety strict liability offences—therefore the magistrate's conviction is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Conviction of the appellant affirmed

Orders

  • Conviction confirmed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed, pursuant to s.13 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance