24 Oct 2007
There was insufficient evidence to conclude the appellant had caused the export; proprietorship and an authorization admission did not prove he contemplated or desired the prohibited export, therefore convictions could not stand and were quashed.
26 Aug 2004
Magistrate correctly rejected the 1st appellant's reliance on the common law defence because mere lending a name, absence of inquiry and implicit trust in spouse did not constitute a good and sufficient reason and the appellant derived benefit from the business; conviction of the 1st appellant is upheld. Regarding the 2nd appellant, the magistrate erred in distinguishing transactions solely by production of copies at trial; the 2nd appellant's consistent evidence that he inspected and believed the certificates genuine applied to all transactions and thus his convictions (as entered by the mag…
10 Oct 1985
On the balance of the documentary evidence (contract marks, certificates of origin, bill of lading) and the credible oral evidence of the defendant's buyer (Defour), the court was satisfied the rejected goods were manufactured by the plaintiff and were defective; the defendant was therefore entitled to set off the remainder-sale loss of HK$75,813.30 and to judgment on the counterclaim for HK$16,716.09; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
17 Jun 1975
Given the absence of revenue loss, the fact the goods were manufactured at another registered factory, and that the magistrate's fine was disproportionate to the circumstances, the appellate court reduced the fine from $8,500 to $1,500 while allowing the costs order to stand.