Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False declaration

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2020

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL159/2018

The applicant knowingly made a false declaration which resulted in a substantial and unfair benefit; the Housing Authority lawfully applied its established policy to issue a Notice to Quit under s.19(1)(b) to revert tenancy conditions; the Tribunal properly confirmed the NTQ; the decisions were neither procedurally unfair nor disproportionate or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the judicial review claim fails.
12 Apr 2019

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 940
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL159/2018

Leave was granted because the proposed judicial review raised a reasonably arguable issue with a realistic prospect of success: specifically whether the HA and Tribunal failed to determine the applicant's state of mind (claim of being misled), a relevant factor in the exercise of statutory discretion; the court confined itself to the leave question and did not decide the merits.
13 Oct 2014

香港特別行政區訴陳文欽

Citation

香港特別行政區訴陳文欽
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA365/2014

The appeal is allowed and the magistrate's immediate custodial sentences are substituted with concurrent 18-month suspended sentences because, on the facts, the appellant's pregnancy and lack of actual loss to the revenue justified a non-custodial outcome despite the general principle that tax false-declaration offences attract imprisonment.
22 May 2007

HKSAR v. CHUI MAN YI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUI MAN YI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA342/2007

The appeal is dismissed because the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive; the magistrate was entitled to adopt the starting points used, apply the guilty plea discount, and order part of the sentence to run consecutively as the offences were separate and committed on different occasions; a drug treatment order was inappropriate given the gravity and public interest in deterrence.
31 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. LAM KA WING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM KA WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA56/2000

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion: he identified the aggravating factor of monetary gain and deception, applied mitigation for guilty plea, delay and personal circumstances, gave a substantial discount from a stated 9–12 month starting point, and the resulting concurrent 3‑month sentences were not excessive or wrong in principle.
26 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. LI Yuk-kam

Citation

HKSAR v. LI Yuk-kam
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA787/1997

The learned magistrate's sentence was manifestly excessive because he failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender status, favourable probation report, and substantial financial loss already suffered); deterrence alone, unsupported by statistics or evidence, did not justify immediate custody, and the appropriate sentence was substitution of a fine of $20,000 for the four months' imprisonment and $2,000 fine.

Hong Kong Case Law

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

黃桂林 v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

香港特別行政區 訴 陳文欽

HKSAR v. CHUI MAN YI

HKSAR v. LAM KA WING

HKSAR v. LI Yuk-kam

香港特別行政區訴陳文欽