Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Telecommunications ordinance s23

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. TSANG KIN SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG KIN SHING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC59/2016

Leave to appeal was dismissed because no reasonably arguable case of unconstitutionality was advanced: the licensing regime for radio spectrum pursues a legitimate aim and s23 is a rational and proportionate means to that end; there was no factual basis that the Communications Authority breached its s4(4) duty or that a s7B class licence would have been available, and Ocean Technology was not shown to be wrongly decided, so no defence of constitutional infringement to the s23 charge was established.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA86/2013

Appeals dismissed. For the 16 respondents heard 14 January 2013 the magistrate did not err in awarding costs because the prosecution was insufficiently prepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or authorities; for the three respondents heard 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure by relying on earlier awards and not following Lam Chiu Fong, but on the merits those respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and thus were entitled to costs; costs of the appeals ordered to respondents, taxed if not agreed.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA89/2013

The prosecution appeals are dismissed. The magistrate did not err in awarding costs on 14 January 2013 given the prosecution's failure to provide summaries or evidence; although the magistrate erred in procedure on 18 February 2013 by not following Lam Chiu Fong and relying on earlier awards, on the merits the three respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs, so the costs orders stand.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA85/2013

Appeals dismissed. For summonses withdrawn on 14 January 2013 the magistrate did not err in awarding costs because the prosecution was unprepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or evidence on which to oppose costs; for summonses withdrawn on 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure by failing to apply Lam Chiu Fong and by relying on prior awards, but on the merits the respondents had not demonstrated they had 'brought suspicion on themselves' given legitimate reasons for withdrawal (lapse of time, roles, likely penalty) and insufficient positive evidence of wrongdoing, the…
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA87/2013

The appeals are dismissed. The Court held the PM did not err in awarding costs on 14 January 2013 where prosecution was unprepared and did not provide summaries or authorities; although the PM erred in procedure on 18 February 2013 by failing to follow Lam Chiu Fong and relying on parity, the Court nonetheless found on the evidence and assumptions made at the hearing that the respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs, so the magistrate's costs orders are upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TSANG KIN SHING

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS