Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Air pollution control

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2023

CHINA CONCRETE CO LTD v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 211
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL241/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the EPD applied clear statutory criteria (s15(3) APCO) and legitimately required demonstration of BPM; the Board conducted an independent rehearing addressing the matters; alleged legitimate expectation, predetermination, improper motive, unequal treatment, irrelevance of considerations and procedural unfairness lacked sufficient evidential basis; the two‑tier appeal process and available remedy further undermined the grounds for judicial review.
14 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. WING LOK CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO, LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. WING LOK CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO, LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA464/2013

The appeal was allowed because 'cause' under the statute requires a positive exercise of authority or control and the contemplation or desire that the prohibited act will ensue; mere inadequate security or foreseeability of theft did not establish that the appellant caused the asbestos removal and on the evidence the possibility of theft by outsiders could not be excluded, so causation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. KWAN ON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN ON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA285/2009

The court held that the regulation covers any activity that generates dust irrespective of being described as cutting, trimming or breaking; the evidence proved a power‑driven operation producing dust without required dust suppression and the appellant failed to establish the s.7 due diligence defence, therefore the conviction and fine were upheld.
26 Jul 2007

CLEAN AIR FOUNDATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR

Citation

CLEAN AIR FOUNDATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL35/2007

The application for leave is refused because the core complaints require evaluation of government policy and the balancing of social, economic and cross-border considerations rather than a determination that government acted outside its legal powers; the material does not disclose a prima facie arguable legal case that would justify interference with policy discretion and therefore leave must be refused.
19 Sept 2001

TENG FUH CO. LTD. t/a KONG CHIN TRADING CO. v. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TENG FUH CO. LTD. t/a KONG CHIN TRADING CO. v. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV588/2001

Storage and commercial distribution of dried shark fins can constitute a 'polluting process' under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance; 'imminent' air pollution is established where, on existing facts, increased storage, warmer weather or greater business would reasonably foreseeably cause objectionable odour to become polluting; s.10 applies irrespective of Cap.132 licensing; Appeal Board and judge's decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, thus appeal dismissed.
21 Mar 2001

TENG FUH CO. LTD. t/a KONG CHIN TRADING CO. v. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TENG FUH CO. LTD. t/a KONG CHIN TRADING CO. v. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1928/2000

The storage and trading activities produced emissions (objectionable odour) and therefore qualified as a 'polluting process' under the Ordinance; the factual matrix (officers' observations, leakage, capacity for increased stock, seasonal heat and handling) established that air pollution was imminent in the statutory sense; the Appeal Board's affirmation was neither irrational nor Wednesbury unreasonable, so the judicial review application failed.
26 Apr 1989

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY

Citation

ASIA DYEING CO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP573/1989

The court held that notices issued under s.9 were valid despite the alternative wording because the notices were clearly aimed at an existing nuisance and any omission was one of particularity. Conversely, s.30 must be read in light of its enumerated grounds (a)-(d): "than need be" is governed by matters of chimney or plant suitability, construction, maintenance or wear, not by the Authority's unfettered value judgment about acceptable emissions; accordingly the Chairman erred in construing s.30 to allow prohibition based solely on the Authority's value judgment and his decision was quashed i…
27 Apr 1987

TREASURE WAY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. AUTHORITY

Citation

TREASURE WAY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. AUTHORITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4/1987

The Authority erred in law by rejecting licence applications solely under Section 9 because the applicants did not own chimneys in existence that were causing or contributing to an air pollutant nuisance; Section 9 must be read with Section 10 and requires notification and non-compliance to create an offence; the Authority's blanket policy and failure to give proper individualized reasons under Regulation 8(2) amounted to wrong exercise of discretion and justification for reversal of refusals.
27 Apr 1987

KAM KONG DYEING FACTORY v. AUTHORITY

Citation

KAM KONG DYEING FACTORY v. AUTHORITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1/1987

The Authority's blanket refusal of licence applications based solely on section 9 was unlawful because s.9 does not by itself prohibit or create liability for owners who are not yet operating chimneys; a contravention requires existence or imminence, notification under s.9 and non-compliance under s.10. The Authority failed to apply discretion to individual applications and in A8 also failed to follow earlier advice; therefore the refusals were reversed.
27 Apr 1987

VOLITAI LTD v. AUTHORITY

Citation

VOLITAI LTD v. AUTHORITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3/1987

The Authority erred in law by refusing chimney licence applications under s.9 because s.9 targets owners of existing chimneys that are causing or contributing to an existing or imminent air pollutant nuisance; applicants did not own operative chimneys and therefore could not be said to be causing or contributing to a nuisance, so s.9 could not lawfully ground the refusals; further, the Authority failed to give required reasons in form and unlawfully applied a blanket policy; appeals allowed and refusals reversed.