Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of statutory notices

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2025

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. oOo SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD and AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LTD) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2027/2023

Court held (1) SFC may not rely on matters relating to Company C in these proceedings because SFC's 13.10.2022 letter said no further action would be taken absent different facts; (2) service of a s.183 notice must be proved for s.185 relief and SFC failed to prove service of the Jan 2023 notice or the 6.7.2023 letter, so no order can be based on the Jan 2023 notice; (3) on the 2021/22 notices the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the requested documents existed and were in D1's possession at the time and that D1 failed without reasonable excuse — liability under s.185(1)(b) establi…
7 Jul 2022

香港特別行政區訴李可為

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA74/2022

Even if the issuing officer's handwriting was untidy and there may have been postal delay, the appellant failed to prove non‑receipt was not due to his own negligence; the ticket was affixed to the vehicle and the addresses used by police and court matched, so the magistrate correctly ordered payment; appeal dismissed.
28 Sept 2021

香港特別行政區訴錦英苑 (二期) 業主立案法團

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA186/2020

The court exercised its discretion under Cap 492 s8 and concluded that although the appeal succeeded on a statutory point regarding the required mode of service (personal service or registered post) and thus the appellant is entitled to costs of the appeal, the appellant's conduct concerning its registered address and interactions leading to mailbox delivery amounted to improper conduct related to the offence and constituted positive reasons to deny recovery of the trial (original) costs; accordingly only appellate costs were awarded.
27 Dec 2013

GOLDEN ADVERTISING CONSULTANCY LTD vBUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

GOLDEN ADVERTISING CONSULTANCY LTD vBUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL148/2013

The Building Authority validly served the building orders on EGL/HKTAL in accordance with section 24(2)(c) BO; s24(2)(c) establishes a priority scheme and does not create a duty to re-serve or to serve every subsequently emerging Category (i) person before enforcement; the applicants failed to show a reasonably arguable case on any ground (statutory duty, mistake of fact, deprivation of appeal, irrelevant considerations or irrationality) and leave is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. oOo SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD and AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LTD) AND OTHERS

香港特別行政區 訴 李可為

香港特別行政區 訴 錦英苑 (二期) 業主立案法團

GOLDEN ADVERTISING CONSULTANCY LTD vBUILDING AUTHORITY

香港特別行政區訴李可為

香港特別行政區訴錦英苑 (二期) 業主立案法團