Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability for regulatory offences

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

Section 114(1)(b) is a regulatory offence in which the presumption of mens rea is displaced; the offence is constituted by the act of holding out unless a reasonable excuse is established; on the facts the agreements and conduct established A1 held itself out as carrying on corporate finance advisory services and A2, as directing mind of A1, was properly convicted under s390; the magistrate’s factual findings were not perverse and the appeals are dismissed.
28 Nov 2008

FONG CHI YUNG AND ANOTHER v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG CHI YUNG AND ANOTHER v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2008

The Tribunal erred in applying s 4(4) PBSO to interpret a PSL under the RTO, but the undisputed evidence established separate fares were accepted and the PSL conditions attach to the vehicle so the same outcome (breach and sanctions) would have been reached; judicial review dismissed and earlier decisions upheld.
4 Jun 2004

STEP IN LTD v. NOISE CONTROL APPEAL BOARD

Citation

STEP IN LTD v. NOISE CONTROL APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV302/2003

The Court held the 'not audible' requirement in the Noise Abatement Notice was within the powers granted by section 13(1) of the Noise Control Ordinance and was not unreasonable, uncertain or ultra vires. The Technical Memorandum does not confine the Authority to decibel-based limits and the Authority's practice of pre-setting levels and liaising with complainants provides a practicable and fair mechanism for enforcement. The applicant's arguments about uncontrollable background noise and potential strict liability did not render the requirement unlawful. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
19 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Citation

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1188/2001

The court upheld the deputy Magistrate: evidence (including expert evidence) established the appellant failed to adequately secure every part of the load under Reg 7J and failed to appoint and station necessary signallers with effective communication under Reg 15B; the offences are regulatory and strict liability, s.18 Cap.59 validly imposes a defence burden on the accused to show on balance of probabilities that it was unnecessary to do more, and the convictions and original fines are therefore upheld.
22 May 1986

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LIU CHING SUN t/a SUN LEE AIRCONDITION CO

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LIU CHING SUN t/a SUN LEE AIRCONDITION CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA438/1986

Although 'scaffold' is not encompassed by the statutory definition of 'plant', the regulatory scheme (in particular Regulation 38B read with Reg. 38C and the definition of responsibility in Reg. 2(2)(a)), construed purposively for safety, imposes responsibility on the principal contractor for scaffolds on the site; strict liability attaches to that responsibility, therefore the Magistrate was wrong to dismiss and the appeal is allowed and remitted for further hearing.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

FONG CHI YUNG AND ANOTHER v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

STEP IN LTD v. NOISE CONTROL APPEAL BOARD

HKSAR v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LIU CHING SUN t/a SUN LEE AIRCONDITION CO