Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Correction of election return

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2022

LAU CHAK FUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1625/2020

The court held that the omission to declare HK$33,114.66 was an inadvertent error without bad faith and therefore correctable under section 40(3) ECICO; similarly the failure to submit election advertisements was inadvertent and excusable under section 106 EACR given the non-uniform statutory definition of "candidate", the applicant's status as a first-time lay participant, lack of professional advice and other mitigating factors; accordingly the amended originating summons was granted and costs were ordered against the applicant in the sum of HK$40,000.
10 Mar 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOW KAM KEI FRANKIE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1050/2021

Relief granted because the understatements arose from reasonable cause or accidental miscalculation and were not due to bad faith: the minibus error was reasonably made in reliance on briefing ambiguity, the placard error was an accidental summation omission, the excess over the statutory limit flowed from those errors; accordingly corrections and exemptions under ss 40 and relief under s31 were allowed and costs awarded to SJ.
11 Oct 2021

YU HON KWAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP684/2020

The omission of transportation expenses was due to inadvertence and not bad faith; applicant filed Return within time and there was no intention to conceal vehicle use, therefore discretionary relief under s40 ECICO was granted to permit filing a corrective return within 14 days, and applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of HKD 12,000.
19 Mar 2021

LO TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 709
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP662/2020

The omission to disclose HK$52,543 was caused by a reasonable cause—reliance on advice from an experienced incumbent councillor—and was not due to bad faith; accordingly the court granted an order under s 40(3) permitting correction of the Return and Declaration but declined to grant the substantive relief from penalties under ss 37/38 because the applicant had not properly addressed the basis for that relief; costs awarded to the Secretary for Justice.
30 Jul 2020

MAN FU WAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP199/2020

Given evidence that the election manager had prepared the return and both manager and candidate intended timely lodging, that the failure was a sequence of inadvertent slip‑ups without bad faith, and the delay was short (14 days), the court exercised its discretion to grant an extension under s40(1)-(2); further, the overstatement of a small donation was a prompt, inadvertent error without bad faith and capable of correction under s40(3)-(4)(c) as a reasonable cause.
20 Jan 2014

RE FAN GARY KWOK WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

RE FAN GARY KWOK WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2013

Court found the breaches (failure to make advertisements available, clerical errors, overspending and return irregularities) were caused by inadvertence, reasonable cause or gross negligence not amounting to bad faith; accordingly relief under section 106 of the Regulation and sections 31(2) and 40(4) of ECICO was just and granted, subject to corrective filings and specified costs directions.
10 Oct 2012

RE LEUNG CHUN YING

Citation

RE LEUNG CHUN YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1112/2012

The court found on the evidence that the catalogued errors were attributable to inadvertence or reasonable cause, that there was no bad faith, and that the Secretary for Justice did not oppose the proposed corrections; accordingly the applicant was entitled to an order under section 40 permitting corrections limited to the items specified in exhibit TKYT-4, with filing of a corrected return within 21 days and without prejudice to any further action by authorities.
16 Mar 2007

LAM KWONG YU v. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE TOURISM SUBSECTOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE SUBSECTOR ELECTIONS 2006 AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM KWONG YU v. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE TOURISM SUBSECTOR OF THE ELECTION COMMITTEE SUBSECTOR ELECTIONS 2006 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP181/2007

The $1,800 payment was a retrospective reimbursement for voluntary campaign assistance and therefore constituted an election expense under s2; it could not be deleted from the return but, because the payment was made from inadvertence and without bad faith and the meeting itself was not an election meeting, the court allowed correction by re‑description of the item under s40(4). Costs were awarded to the respondents.