Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Correction of election returns

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2014

DR. FANG DAVID v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

DR. FANG DAVID v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP95/2014

Errors and omissions in the applicants' election returns were attributable to inadvertence, miscalculation or loss of receipts by the applicants' agents and PCSC, did not show bad faith, did not affect the overall expense ceiling, and therefore the court granted corrective relief under s40(3) and excepted applicants from producing certain invoices/receipts under s40(5); corrective returns to be filed within seven days.
26 Feb 2014

DR. CHOW CHUN BONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

DR. CHOW CHUN BONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP93/2014

The court granted orders under ss 40(3) and 40(5) because the errors and omissions were shown to be inadvertent, constituted miscalculations or lost/omitted documentation without evidence of bad faith, did not affect the overall correctness of declared election expenses nor exceed expense ceilings, and retrospective invoices or reasonable explanations were provided or obtainable; corrective returns were ordered within seven days and no order as to costs was made.
30 Jul 2013

RE KUN SUN, JAMES

Citation

RE KUN SUN, JAMES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1685/2013

The court found the majority of the errors (clerical mistakes, inadvertent omissions and a staff misunderstanding) were due to inadvertence or reasonable cause and not bad faith; accordingly leave to amend and orders to correct the return were granted for all items except the transportation services donation item, where no error was found.

Hong Kong Case Law

DR. FANG DAVID v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

DR. CHOW CHUN BONG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

RE KUN SUN, JAMES