Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietor liability

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2013

PAUL Y GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD v. HKSAR

Citation

PAUL Y GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2012

The Court allowed the appeals against the proprietor convictions as those prosecutions were misconceived, affirmed the convictions as contractors, and awarded the appellants partial costs apportioned to reflect the successful proprietor appeals. Specifically, the Court ordered half of the appellants' costs in this Court and in the application for leave, and adopted the apportionments proposed for Paul Y for the courts below (one third of trial costs, one third of High Court appeal costs, half of costs on application for a certificate, all costs on application for leave), with costs to be taxe…
19 Aug 2011

HKSAR v. LUCKY ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. LUCKY ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA102/2010

Court held s.13(1) of the FIUO applies to proprietors of industrial undertakings in the circumstances complained of, can operate to impose strict/absolute liability in the regulatory context to promote proactive management and supervision, that application of s.13(1) to s.6A offences is rational and proportionate and compatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, amendments under s.27 were properly made and trial factual findings identifying responsible proprietors/contractors were sustainable; appeals against conviction were dismissed.
19 Aug 2011

HKSAR v. PAUL Y. GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. PAUL Y. GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA922/2009

Section 13(1) of Cap.59 applies to offences under s.6A and can impose strict/absolute liability on proprietors for 'like' offences committed within their industrial undertaking to promote proactive management and safety; that construction is rationally connected to legitimate public safety aims and proportionate under Bill of Rights analysis; amendments to informations under s.27 were permissible and convictions against the appellants (found to be proprietors/principal contractors/responsible contractors on the facts) were supported by evidence and must be upheld.
30 Jun 1998

The Secretary for Justice v. The Oriental Press Group Ltd. and Others

Citation

The Secretary for Justice v. The Oriental Press Group Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP407/1998

The sustained and venomous campaign by the Oriental Daily News and the targeted harassment of a judge constituted contempts of court; the editor, as controller of content, was primarily responsible and received immediate custodial sentences, and the proprietor company was liable for the publication and must be punished by a substantial fine; costs against the prosecution are to be borne largely by the convicted parties, with specific arrangements for taxation and enforcement.
24 Jan 1978

TON K. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE QUEEN

Citation

TON K. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC2/1978

The court held the head contractor (appellant) was properly characterised as 'proprietor' for purposes of Reg.17(1) because the Building Administration certificate constituted an undertaking to carry out works in compliance with the Buildings Ordinance, imposing responsibility for manner and safety of execution despite subcontracting; accordingly the conviction for improper mounting (Reg.7) stands. However, the conviction for absence of a guard (Summons No.9819 under Reg.8(1)) was quashed because the prosecution did not prove absence of a guard beyond reasonable doubt and the charge was effec…

Hong Kong Case Law

PAUL Y GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. LUCKY ENGINEERING CO LTD

HKSAR v. PAUL Y. GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD

The Secretary for Justice v. The Oriental Press Group Ltd. and Others

TON K. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THE QUEEN