Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of statute

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2020

CHEE FEI MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 677
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV489/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the construction and systemic proportionality challenges to s.104A fall within the scope of issues already remitted or previously considered and should be pursued in the remitted proceedings (FAMV 42/43/2016) rather than by piecemeal applications; the amendment application was dismissed and the Notices of Motion were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
13 Aug 2020

HUNG SHUI FUNG v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE ANDANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 677
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV490/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested construction and proportionality questions fell within matters previously remitted or should be pursued in the earlier applications (FAMV 42 and 43/2016); the applicants improperly sought to reframe or relitigate issues in these appeals instead of reactivating the prior proceedings; consequentially the Notices of Motion were dismissed and costs awarded.
24 Sept 2015

YIP WAI FAN (MINOR), BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND HE XIANNA v. YIP TSZ BUN AND YIP WAI KEI, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF YIP YAN CHOI, DECEASED

Citation

YIP WAI FAN (MINOR), BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND HE XIANNA v. YIP TSZ BUN AND YIP WAI KEI, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF YIP YAN CHOI, DECEASED
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ301/2015

On construction of section 13 MPSO the group life policy, though effected by the employer and containing other benefits, was expressed to confer a benefit on the insured's child and therefore created a statutory trust over the moneys payable on the insured's death; no serious triable issues of fact existed and summary judgment was appropriate, resulting in a declaration that the defendants hold the Policy Moneys on trust to pay 20% (1/5) to the plaintiff and an order for payment of HK$122,375.80 with interest.
1 Mar 2012

W v. REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES

Citation

W v. REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2010

The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the CFA Ordinance because the construction issue (whether "woman" and "female" in ss.21 and 40 of the Marriage Ordinance include a post-operative male-to-female transsexual) and the related constitutional issue (whether those provisions are unconstitutional under Article 37 Basic Law and/or Articles 19(2) and 14 of the Bill of Rights) are questions of sufficient general or public importance to warrant determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
20 Jul 2006

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

Citation

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2003

The application to determine the construction of s.2(2)(c) separately was refused because the question whether informally adopted persons fall within that provision depends materially on expert evidence as to Chinese law and custom and on factual matters best determined at trial; therefore the court exercised its discretion under O.14A r.1 / O.33 r.3 to refuse the separate determination and to require progression to trial with directions.
29 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. SHAM CHOR WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAM CHOR WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1320/2000

The Court held that section 7(1) confers broad powers which are not restricted by subsection (2); the appellant's engagement fell within the Authority's power to appoint staff or enter into arrangements to supply services and thus he was appointed under the Ordinance and bound by the confidentiality duties in s15; the magistrate's finding and approach were proper and the conviction was upheld.
7 Jun 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI MING KIT

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI MING KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA252/1995

The 1986 amendment to s.69(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance removed any statutory power to limit disqualification to a particular class of vehicle; s.4(2)(a) of Cap.272 does not by itself confer such a power. Therefore a magistrate erred in limiting disqualification to private cars.
14 Mar 1994

LAM ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. LAI MOON HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. LAI MOON HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1566/1993

The court held that s4(2) Cap.152 operated to create a new Crown lease commencing 1 July 1973 and vested in the plaintiff; the plaintiff's right of action therefore first accrued on that date, the defendants' possessory claims did not fall within s4(4) as rights preserved against the new lease, and consequently the plaintiff's actions commenced 10 June 1993 were within the 20-year period of s7(2) Cap.347 and not statute-barred.
17 Feb 1994

Re Robert Neville Thomas Q.C.

Citation

Re Robert Neville Thomas Q.C.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP387/1994

The court held that appearance by Mr Robert Neville Thomas Q.C. before the Buildings Appeal Tribunal, with the Tribunal's permission, did not constitute practising or acting as a barrister 'directly or indirectly' under s.44 LPO because he would be performing only the limited role any 'other person' may perform and was not holding himself out as a Hong Kong barrister nor performing acts exclusively reserved to admitted barristers; declaration granted accordingly.
26 Jan 1989

ACADA DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLD WAY TRADING CO LTD

Citation

ACADA DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLD WAY TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/1988

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the High Court's grant or refusal of leave under s23 because Hong Kong statutes did not adopt the additional UK restrictions (s1(6A) and s1(7)(b)), there is no justification for implying further exclusions into s14(3), and the Lane v Esdaile principle does not displace the clear statutory scheme in Hong Kong; therefore the refusal of leave by Sears J was an appealable order.