3 Oct 2019
HKSAR v. CHOW SHING KEE INVESTMENT CO LTD
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2343
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA513/2018
The Court held that service of the BO was properly effected on the appellant under s24(2A) because 'connected to' must be given a purposive and broad meaning (including ducts extending into premises, embedded components and land-adjoining connections) and that collateral challenge on service is within the court's remit as service is an element of the offence; furthermore the appellant's asserted excuse (difficulty relocating air-conditioning units) did not amount to a reasonable excuse as the order required removal of metal frames only and post-removal consequences are irrelevant.