Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement notices

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2012

HERO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

Citation

HERO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the application for judicial review challenged enforcement notices about use as a columbarium and the factual position (only 13‑14 occupied cupboards) meant there was no property or civil right meeting the s22 monetary threshold, and the purported interpretive issue was not reasonably arguable nor of sufficient public importance to justify discretionary leave; alleged licence agreements were background only and not the subject‑matter of the appeal.
14 Jun 1995

R. v. HELEN TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

R. v. HELEN TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA303/1995

The court upheld the magistrate's factual finding, supported by aerial photographs and on-site evidence, that after the interim DPA took effect the land was materially changed and intensified into a container trailer/tractor park, open container storage and tyre repair facilities; those uses constituted unauthorised development, were not discontinued despite the enforcement notice, and therefore the convictions under s23(6) were rightly sustained; criticisms of burden shifting and minor improper requirement in the notice did not vitiate the conviction.
17 Mar 1995

R. v. TANG YING YIP and Anothers

Citation

R. v. TANG YING YIP and Anothers
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA864/1994

The designation of 'unspecified use' in the draft DPA plan falls within the enabling words of s4(1); a landowner served with an enforcement notice under s23(1) may be prosecuted under s23(6) even if not proven to have carried out the unauthorised development, subject to the s23(9)(a) defence of taking all reasonable steps; the enforcement notices in issue were legally effective when read as a whole to require discontinuance of container storage even though land‑filling operations had been completed; service by posting on the terminal gate satisfied s23(10); the sentencing decisions were withi…
17 Mar 1995

R. v. TANG YING HEI

Citation

R. v. TANG YING HEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1389/1994

The court held that (1) the 'unspecified use' designation falls within the general power in s4(1) and is lawful; (2) landowners served with enforcement notices under s23(1) may be prosecuted under s23(6) even if not proven to have caused the unauthorised development, subject to the s23(9)(a) defence of taking all reasonable steps; (3) the enforcement notices were valid as read with the accompanying letter since they fairly informed recipients that both land‑filling and container storage were unauthorised and required discontinuance; (4) the three‑month compliance period was not intrinsically…
20 Jan 1995

RE MAN WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

RE MAN WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3144/1994

Leave to apply for judicial review was set aside because the application was not brought promptly (approximately 18 months' delay from the date of the enforcement notices) and the applicants failed to show good reason for that delay; further, material non‑disclosure to the judge who granted leave was established; additionally the decision to prosecute is not properly challenged by judicial review in this context.

Hong Kong Case Law

HERO LTD AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

R. v. HELEN TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. and Others

R. v. TANG YING YIP and Anothers

R. v. TANG YING HEI

RE MAN WAI HUNG AND OTHERS