Hong Kong Case Law

4 Jun 2002

HKSAR v. SIMS TRADING CO. LTD.

Citation

HKSAR v. SIMS TRADING CO. LTD.

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA191/2002

Appeal dismissed because neither s9(4)(b)(ii) nor (iii) applied: the spilled salad dressing did not create the immediate or real danger required by (ii) and 'cleansing' in (iii) does not permit washing arbitrary substances into drains or extend to private premises; additionally the appellant knew flushing was unlawful so the honest belief defence was not established.

• Strict liability
• Statutory defences
• Ejusdem generis
• Mischief rule
• Interpretation of exemptions under s9(4)(b)

24 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. S. SPACE DESIGN (HK) CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. S. SPACE DESIGN (HK) CO LTD

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA615/1997

Section 15(1) on its plain terms creates an offence only where the employer terminates employment under Sections 6 or 7; there was no evidence the appellant terminated pursuant to s6 or s7; the magistrate erred in importing a constructive s6/s7 termination from a Labour Tribunal compensation award and in misapplying the mischief rule; conviction therefore unsafe and quashed.

• Maternity protection
• Wrongful dismissal
• Summary dismissal
• Termination of employment
• Mischief rule
• Judicial conduct and fairness

ELSON-VERNON KNITTERS LTD v. SINO-INDO-AMERICAN SPINNERS LTD

Citation

ELSON-VERNON KNITTERS LTD v. SINO-INDO-AMERICAN SPINNERS LTD

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV22/1972

The appeal is dismissed; a court may consult legislative history and the Objects and Reasons of a Bill to identify the mischief the statute was intended to remedy, but where statutory language is clear and unambiguous such history cannot be used to alter the plain meaning of the enactment.

• Mischief rule
• Legislative history
• Plain meaning rule