Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Licence conditions

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2015

CHEUNG TAK WING v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG TAK WING v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2015

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable and raised serious questions of public importance about the meaning of 'public interest' for API, the Authority's duty to pre-vet and constitutionality of the government exemption; the interlocutory injunction was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the higher threshold of overwhelming merits required to restrain a public authority enforcing prima facie valid law and the balance of convenience favoured allowing broadcasts to continue.
5 Mar 2014

SABINANO II MARCEL R v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEAL BOARD

Citation

SABINANO II MARCEL R v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2013

The MSAB's decision was quashed because it materially relied on objectively verifiable mistaken facts and irrelevant considerations, and failed to weigh material and particular factors (including installed soundproofing, size, zoning and inconsistent treatment), rendering the rehearing unfair and Wednesbury unreasonable; appropriate relief was to quash the decision, remit the appeal to a differently constituted MSAB for an expeditious rehearing in accordance with law, and award costs to the applicant.
12 Aug 2011

HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD v. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL58/2010

Condition 13 does not require the licensee to obtain the prior satisfaction or prior consent of the Director of Highways as to alignment and disposition before installation; the Respondents took irrelevant considerations (including alleged inappropriate use of the SWP and reliance on absence of prior consent) which materially influenced the Relevant Decisions; the decisions requiring indiscriminate removal of all poles without reasons were Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the Relevant Decisions are quashed.
28 Nov 2008

FONG CHI YUNG AND ANOTHER v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG CHI YUNG AND ANOTHER v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2008

The Tribunal erred in applying s 4(4) PBSO to interpret a PSL under the RTO, but the undisputed evidence established separate fares were accepted and the PSL conditions attach to the vehicle so the same outcome (breach and sanctions) would have been reached; judicial review dismissed and earlier decisions upheld.
1 Jun 2007

PCCW - HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

PCCW - HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL6/2007

The Authority validly exercised powers under TO ss.36B(1)(a)(i) and (iii) to issue an interim direction requiring PCCW to secure interconnection with Wharf for Zone's 5804 VoIP service and to set interim charges at LIC; SC 3.1/3.2 of PCCW's licence imposed a mandatory duty to interconnect and a duty to use reasonable endeavours to secure prompt interconnection; TO s.32F(4) and the numbering Code did not confer additional independent power; the Direction was not illegal or irrational and was a proportionate, light-touch regulatory intervention pending negotiation or a s.36A determination.
17 Jan 2007

HKSAR v. HO MANG KEUNG JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. HO MANG KEUNG JOSEPH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA648/2006

Licence conditions 8 and 9 were within the Commissioner's statutory power under ss.27–30 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance and not ultra vires; the magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence as dishonest and to find the appellant failed to establish the Fong Chin Yue mistake defence on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
9 Jul 2005

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1256/2005

The court has jurisdiction under s15(2) of the Broadcasting Ordinance to entertain claims for breach of licence conditions; there is a serious question to be tried that the Program may be substantially produced by TVB within the meaning of condition 36.5 and damages would not be an adequate remedy, and on balance of convenience the interim injunction restraining Galaxy from broadcasting the Program pending trial should be granted; the Channels application was refused because the proposed short suspension to 1 August 2005 was unlikely to achieve any useful purpose given the likely rejection of…
1 Nov 2004

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2003

Clause 54 of the licence imposes a negative obligation not to obstruct existing telecommunication services; it does not impose a positive duty to ensure concurrent reception. The Authority exceeded its powers by directing the applicant to submit a plan effectively requiring provision of concurrent services and by incorporating government policy as a mandatory determinant of the plan; the direction was therefore ultra vires and Wednesbury unreasonable and must be quashed.
30 Jun 2004

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL152/2002

S.36B(1)(a)(iii) must be read with the expanded definitions in s.36A(3D)/(3E) so as to permit the Authority to direct broadband Type II interconnection, but the Authority acted unlawfully in the May 2002 direction by failing, in the circumstances of deadlock over terms, to set interim terms and conditions; that failure was irrational and arbitrary and therefore the direction was unlawful though remedy and costs are reserved.
30 Jul 2003

WONG KAM KUEN v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KAM KUEN v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2003

The Commissioner does not have statutory power under s.5(3) or s.5(7) of the Amusement Game Centres Ordinance to impose licence conditions that operate as a general censorship of specific video games for persons aged 16 and over; s.5 permits regulation of categories or types of games and safety/management conditions, but determinations as to obscenity/indecency fall within the COIA/OAT framework. The Advisory Panel process lacks statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards and cannot validate an excess of power.