5 Mar 2024
The presumption of mens rea is displaced in respect of the age element of both s.118C and s.146 of the Crimes Ordinance and, applying the reasoning in Kulemesin and HKSAR v Choi Wai Lun, the third Kulemesin alternative applies: the accused has a defence if he proves on the balance of probabilities that he honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was aged 16 or over.
11 Jun 2021
The Court held the Ordinance, including s.6 deeming the Mainland Port Area as outside Hong Kong for purposes of applying Mainland law (except reserved matters), is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law: the arrangement falls within HKSAR executive and legislative autonomy, is confined in purpose and scope, does not alter administrative boundaries, and the NPCSC Decision confirming conformity is a highly persuasive constitutional factor; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
19 Mar 2021
Court held the Offer Letter and Acceptance Letter constituted an agreement for a new Government lease but there was insufficient evidence of any formal grant or replacement of ML139 Sec D by IL5735; absence of certified originals did not create a real risk of successful Government or other encumbrance given LACO correspondence, recitals in title deeds and the deeming provisions of s14 CPO; accordingly the vendor had adequately answered requisitions and had shown and given a good title so the purchaser's claims were dismissed.
27 Jan 2021
Leave to appeal refused because no arguable question of law was identified; the Board's findings that the audited Hop Kee accounts were credible and that sums were directors' emoluments dealt with on the appellant's behalf within s11D(a) were supported by evidence and law and were not perverse or irrational.
10 Dec 2019
The Tribunal held that Sign 5 and Sign K each constitute separate tenements under section 9 of the Rating Ordinance because the spaces were used solely for exhibiting advertisements and the rights to use them were granted to persons other than the owner (second limb of s9(1)); accordingly both signs are liable for rates and Sign 5 is liable for Government rent; the assessment did not constitute unlawful double charging and the appellant failed to discharge its burden to prove rateability was wrong.
10 Dec 2019
The Tribunal held that both Sign 5 and Sign K are separate tenements under section 9(1) of the Rating Ordinance because the external wall spaces were not occupied for any other purpose and the right to use them for exhibiting advertisements was granted to persons other than the owner; accordingly both signs are liable to rates and Sign 5 is liable for government rent under the Rent Ordinance.
10 Dec 2019
Section 9(1) Rating Ordinance applies (second limb): where land is not occupied for any other purpose and the right to use it for exhibiting advertisements is granted to a person other than the owner, that right is deemed a separate tenement once a structure is erected or an advertisement exhibited under s9(2); on facts Sign 5 and Sign K met these criteria and are separate rateable tenements, and Sign 5 is liable for Government rent under the Rent Ordinance.
10 Dec 2019
The Tribunal held that Sign 5 and Sign K constitute separate tenements under section 9 of the Rating Ordinance because the external wall spaces were not occupied for any other purpose and the rights to use them for exhibiting advertisements were granted to persons other than the owner (second limb of s9(1)); Sign K objectively constituted an advertisement; therefore both signs are rateable and Sign 5 is also liable for government rent where rateable value is assigned; the appellant failed to discharge the burden to show otherwise.
10 Dec 2019
Section 9(1) (second limb) applies: the external wall spaces were not occupied for any other purpose and the rights to use them for advertising were granted to persons other than the owner; the structures objectively constitute advertisements (size, location, purpose and contractual grants); therefore Sign 5 and Sign K are separately deemed tenements under section 9 and liable to rates, and Sign 5, having an assigned rateable value, is liable to Government rent under the Rent Ordinance.
10 Dec 2019
The Tribunal held that Sign 5 and Sign K are separate tenements under section 9 of the Rating Ordinance by application of the second limb of s9(1): the lands (sign locations) were not occupied for any purpose other than exhibiting advertisements and the rights to use them were granted to persons other than the owner, satisfying s9(2) because structures were erected and advertisements exhibited; Sign K was objectively an advertisement. Consequently both signs are rateable and Sign 5 is liable to Government rent under the Rent Ordinance where rateable value is assigned.