Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Air pollution

  • 27 Apr 1987

    MING KAI DYEING FACTORY LTD v. AUTHORITY

    Citation
    MING KAI DYEING FACTORY LTD v. AUTHORITY
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP7/1987

    The Board held that Section 9 cannot lawfully be invoked to refuse licences for proposed chimneys that are not yet in existence and therefore not emitting; because applicants were not existing owners of emitting chimneys the Authority erred in law in rejecting applications solely on Section 9 grounds and failed to meet requirements of Regulation 8(2) as to reasons; predictive modelling alone was insufficient to justify the blanket refusals. Accordingly the Authority's refusals were unlawful and were reversed.

  • 27 Apr 1987

    PROFIT GAIN DYEING CO LTD v. AUTHORITY

    Citation
    PROFIT GAIN DYEING CO LTD v. AUTHORITY
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP9/1987

    The Board held that s.9 applies to owners of existing chimneys emitting pollutants and, without the three elements of existence or imminence of nuisance, notification and non-compliance under s.10, mere potential contribution by proposed, non-existent chimneys cannot justify refusal under Reg.8; the Authority erred in law by rejecting applications solely on s.9 and by adopting a blanket policy and failing to give proper reasons, so the appeals were allowed.

  • 27 Apr 1987

    CHUNG SHING FINISHING WORKS LTD v. AUTHORITY

    Citation
    CHUNG SHING FINISHING WORKS LTD v. AUTHORITY
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP8/1987

    The Authority erred in law by refusing chimney licences solely on the basis of s.9 because s.9, read with s.10, requires a notified owner of existing or imminently offending plant and non-compliance to constitute contravention; appellants were not owners of existing chimneys and therefore could not a fortiori cause or contribute to an air pollutant nuisance. The Authority also improperly exercised its discretion by applying a blanket policy; accordingly the refusals were unlawful and were reversed.

  • 27 Apr 1987

    SOLAR ACE CO LTD v. AUTHORITY

    Citation
    SOLAR ACE CO LTD v. AUTHORITY
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP2/1987

    Section 9 of the Ordinance cannot, by itself, justify refusal of chimney licences for proposed installations because it presupposes existing or imminent nuisance caused by emissions from chimneys or plant; appellants were not owners of emitting chimneys and the statutory ingredients for enforcement under ss.9-10 were absent. The Authority therefore erred in law in rejecting the licence applications and in some instances failed to give proper reasons or exercised discretion improperly; the appeals are allowed and the refusals reversed.

  • 22 Sept 1984

    HON WEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. THE AUTHORITY

    Citation
    HON WEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. THE AUTHORITY
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP1/1984

    Appeal dismissed because uncontested documentary and sample evidence proved breach of the permit conditions (use of fuel with sulphur content above the 0.5% limit and initial noncompliant chimney height), the appellant failed to remediate despite warnings and ample time, modification to use compliant fuel was feasible and short-term, and the Authority lawfully exercised its powers under section 30; stay refused and no costs awarded pursuant to section 33(6).