Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Regulatory enforcement

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. ABLE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA597/2019

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the magistrate's finding of negligence by unspecified employees was not supported by the evidence, the inference that the channel could and should have been covered was speculative and not grounded in primary fact, and the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that it honestly and reasonably believed it was complying with statutory and regulatory anti-mosquito measures, thereby establishing the common law defence.
21 Nov 2016

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/2016

Bail pending appeal was granted because the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable appeal on sentence — namely that an immediate custodial sentence was excessive in all the circumstances and that, given mitigating and exceptional features (no personal gain, policy shared by predecessors/successors, good character and admission of responsibility), the length of custodial sentence could be confined to time already served; on that basis bail was justified pending appeal.
28 Jun 1989

CHAN FAI v. TELEVISION AND ENTERTATNMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

Citation

CHAN FAI v. TELEVISION AND ENTERTATNMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/1989

Interim mandatory relief was refused because the applicant had not shown substantial prospects of success on appeal, had pleaded guilty to offences involving employment of unapproved persons and repeated breaches occurred thereafter, and because the court should be reluctant to order interference with a statutory licensing authority exercising its regulatory duties under regulations 7(1)(b) and (d). The balance of considerations thus did not justify interim re-granting of the licence.
18 Mar 1982

WONG WAI FAT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG WAI FAT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/1982

Misuse of a pleasure vessel for non-pleasure purposes does not automatically constitute a breach of a licence condition or an offence under the regulations; regulation 3(4) gives the Director broad power to impose conditions (and regulation 3(6) is illustrative not limiting), but absent a specific condition or breach (such as failure to surrender under regulation 10) the convictions could not be sustained and must be quashed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. ABLE ENGINEERING CO LTD

HKSAR v. SO PING CHI

CHAN FAI v. TELEVISION AND ENTERTATNMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

WONG WAI FAT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN