Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Qualified bar definition

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2008

ARTHUR LOH KOK CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

ARTHUR LOH KOK CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL16/2008

The Appeal Board applied an incorrect and unduly narrow approach by focusing on discrete periods and types of food rather than assessing what each establishment held itself out to be doing as a whole; turnover evidence may be relevant but is not determinative; Appeal Board's reasons were inadequate, rendering its decisions unlawful and liable to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
8 Oct 2008

TAI PUI MAN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING

Citation

TAI PUI MAN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL58/2008

The correct approach is to give 'mainly used' and 'primarily engaged' their ordinary meanings and to assess an establishment's status by reference to its regular and general use as a whole (including but not limited to turnover data); the Appeal Board failed by focusing on discrete periods and types of food and by omitting consideration of turnover arguments, rendering its decisions unlawful; accordingly the Board's confirmations of the Director's removals were quashed and matters remitted for reconsideration.
8 Oct 2008

CASTRO ANALIZA SAGUINSIN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CASTRO ANALIZA SAGUINSIN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL66/2008

The court held that "mainly used" and "primarily engaged" must be construed in their ordinary senses by assessing the regular and general use of the premises as a whole; turnover figures can inform but not conclusively determine that assessment; the Appeal Board erred by focusing on discrete periods and types of food and by failing to address the main use question adequately, rendering its reasons insufficient and unlawful, so its decisions were quashed and the matters remitted for reconsideration.

Hong Kong Case Law

ARTHUR LOH KOK CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER

TAI PUI MAN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING

CASTRO ANALIZA SAGUINSIN AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL BOARD UNDER THE SMOKING (PUBLIC HEALTH) ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER