Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legislative intent

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2024

律政司司長訴牛奶有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA88/2024

Magistrate did not err in law or reach a conclusion no reasonable magistrate could reach. Point‑of‑sale displays, even if conspicuous (colours, lighting, bespoke holders, pack arrangements), are not automatically "tobacco advertisements" under Cap.371; prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the displays were promotional in the statutory sense rather than sales displays. Where s.14(1)(c) might be engaged, s.14(1A) (anti-smoking purpose) can negate classification as tobacco advertisement in the circumstances; the acquittals are therefore upheld.
8 Apr 2019

TSANG MEI SHEUNG MEIZ v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 358
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1632/2017

On the agreed facts the commission and team leader bonus were paid monthly, were payable for each day of the month regardless of attendance, and therefore constitute sums paid for statutory entitlements within the 'any other reason' limb of sections 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6) of the Employment Ordinance; such sums must be deducted when calculating statutory entitlements, resulting in no shortfall and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
4 Apr 2019

律政司司長訴馮志凱

Citation

[2019] HKCA 391
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/2017

The Court dismissed the Secretary for Justice's review application: the magistrate had not made an error of principle nor imposed a manifestly inadequate sentence; there is no single mandatory tariff for s3(1)(a) offences and sentencing must be fact‑sensitive; the court set out sentencing principles and common aggravating factors for guidance but declined to impose the applicant's higher starting point.
22 Jun 2018

CHUNG CHIU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1421
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL69/2014

[2018] HKCFI 1421
23 Jun 2016

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MAK WAI MAN v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA28/2015

Allowed appeal on issue of whether commissions/team leader bonus could be deducted under ss 35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6): Presiding Officer erred by failing to consider legislative intent and whether commissions might be treated as payments in respect of paid leave (including implied terms/other agreements); matter remitted to Labour Tribunal to determine whether commissions and team leader bonus reduce statutory entitlements. Dismissed appeal on Replacement Arrangement: Presiding Officer’s finding that arrangement was unilateral and not accepted or estopped was supported by evidence and will stan…
3 Aug 2011

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS11000/2011

The Tribunal held that a subdivision must be genuine and valid to be recognized under L.N.6 of 2010; a mere paper subdivision by registration without actual lawful physical subdivision (and which breaches the Deed of Mutual Covenant or Occupation Permit) is not a valid subdivision for the purposes of the Notice, therefore the units on the 3rd floor are to be treated as a single unit for threshold calculation and the Respondents' strike out summonses fail.
20 Nov 2007

TSOI MAN HUNG AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSOI MAN HUNG AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL37/2007

Section 59E applies to persons convicted in the Magistrates' Courts because 'serious arrestable offence' refers to the character of the offence as established at commission and not to the sentence actually imposed upon summary conviction; there is no textual or contextual basis to read a qualification excluding magistrates' convictions and the sampling regime is proportionate to legitimate law enforcement objectives.
18 May 2007

LEUNG HO SING AND OTHERS v. SHUM YIU TUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG HO SING AND OTHERS v. SHUM YIU TUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2006

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the delay (more than five months) far exceeded the 28 day rule, the reasons for delay were unacceptable, the proposed grounds lacked sufficient merit (the Court of Appeal is bound by its prior decisions unless per incuriam), absence of the Incorporated Owners did not invalidate the earlier judgment, and the application was hopeless warranting indemnity costs.
6 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. TONG CHIU WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG CHIU WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2006

The provision s15A(3)(c) should not be interpreted to cover ordinary monetary discounts for multi-packs; legislative history and purpose do not support a broad ban on price discounts and such an interpretation would lead to unduly drastic results; accordingly the conviction under that provision cannot stand.
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.