Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of statutes

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2010

B v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Citation

B v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2009

Where an advantage is offered in Hong Kong s.9(2) of the POBO applies even if the offeree is a public official of a place outside Hong Kong and the conduct relates to his public duties outside Hong Kong; an agreement made in Hong Kong to offer such an advantage is a conspiracy under s.159A of the Crimes Ordinance triable in Hong Kong; consequently the High Court had jurisdiction to make the s.14(1)(d) order and the appeal against that order is dismissed.
6 Oct 2006

BEACHSHORE LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

BEACHSHORE LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2006

S.29 of the Rent Ordinance establishes a self-contained, certain regime for holding over Government rent and limits the circumstances in which the Commissioner may cancel or alter holding over orders to those specified in s.29; accordingly the Commissioner had no general power under s.46 to withdraw holding over orders. Where the Commissioner relied on s.29(5) and formed an honest, rational opinion that an appellant was unreasonably delaying proceedings or that rent would become irrecoverable, cancellation under s.29(5) was lawful. Individual applications succeeded or failed on application of…
16 Oct 2003

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GALLIUM DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. WINNING PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2003

The Registrar held the setting down valid: appeals from the Lands Tribunal are governed by s.11(2) LTO and Order 60A r.4 HCR; a sealed copy is not required where set down within the statutory 7‑day period after service; the decision appealed was a determination/order and the notice disclosed a point of law (construction of s.34I Building Management Ordinance and 'owners committee'), therefore the appeal was properly set down.
7 Jun 2002

JADE CITY INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

JADE CITY INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2631/2001

Section 12 must be read in its statutory context with ss3-10: the compensation scheme is linked to statutory easements created under ss6-10 and therefore 'land' in s12 is confined to land identified in the relevant orders/Gazette (servient tenements); consequential and purposive interpretative principles support limiting compensation to owners of those servient tenements; appeal allowed.
7 Mar 1997

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/1996

On proper construction s.22A of the Arbitration Ordinance Cap 341 refers to simple interest only; there is no clear legislative intention to authorize compound interest by arbitrators, legislative history and parliamentary materials support that conclusion, and common law does not confer such a power absent statute; therefore the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award compound interest.
26 Jul 1994

MATHESON PFC LTD. v. SIMON JANSEN

Citation

MATHESON PFC LTD. v. SIMON JANSEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/1994

Schedule 1(a) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance restricts the Tribunal's jurisdiction to contracts of employment to be performed in Hong Kong and to overseas contracts governed by Cap.78; thus contracts to be performed outside Hong Kong (not falling under Cap.78) are excluded from the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction. The appellant's contract, performed in Indonesia, was therefore not within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction and the court action must be restored.
18 Oct 1984

COLONIAL TREASURER INCORPORATED v. FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

COLONIAL TREASURER INCORPORATED v. FOOK HONG ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV123/1984

The Court held that for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance the effective rateable values on 10 June 1983 are those fixed by the Lands Tribunal with effect from 1 April 1983 under Part IX of the Rating Ordinance; administrative delay in physically amending the list does not prevent the retrospective effect of the Tribunal's determination from being recognized, and allowing tenants to rely on such administrative or valuation errors to obtain decontrol would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
27 Dec 1978

RENOWN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TAM WING-KEI AND OTHERS

Citation

RENOWN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TAM WING-KEI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3/1978

Section 41F(3) of the Employment Ordinance is unambiguous and, read on its terms, entitles every person who is an employee at the commencement of a closure and who is not otherwise entitled to annual leave pay to be allowed that day as annual leave and paid by the employer; therefore all respondents were entitled to seven days annual leave with pay irrespective of length of service and pro-rata payments do not apply.
27 Dec 1978

RENOWN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TAM WING-KEI AND OTHERS

Citation

RENOWN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TAM WING-KEI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2/1978

Section 41F(3) is unambiguous and entitles every person who is an employee at the commencement of the employer's closure and who is not otherwise entitled to annual leave pay to be allowed that day as annual leave and be paid by the employer annual leave pay in respect thereof; pro-rata payments do not apply to such closures and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Jun 1974

HO KONG-PO v. YIU HOI LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HO KONG-PO v. YIU HOI LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ29/1974

Where a notice to quit given under the Repealed Part II has been challenged by service of a counter-notice, and the notice to quit expired prior to commencement of the New Part II, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application made after commencement of the New Part II under the repealed provisions; the applicant must bring an action by writ under the New Part II and termination of the tenancies will only occur if and when a court order under the New Part II takes effect.