Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Codes of practice

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2024

RADIO TELEVISION HONG KONG PROGRAMME STAFF UNION AND ANOTHER v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 845
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV579/2021

The Court of Appeal held that (1) the Episode was properly classified as a PVP because satire conveys value judgments within the PVP definition; (2) the Authority misapplied para 1A in relation to Remarks A and B and its findings of breach (including the specific finding in respect of Remark B) were quashed because the Authority failed to identify and assess the factual content triggering the para 1A verification duty; (3) the Authority's finding under para 17(d) that RTHK failed to present a sufficiently broad range of views was Wednesbury-unreasonable because it ignored RTHK's invitations t…
31 Dec 2020

TELEVISION BROADCAST LTD v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL151/2016

The court held the Relevant Paragraphs of the Codes met the 'prescribed by law' requirement and were a proportionate restriction on commercial expression in the context of pervasive free‑to‑air broadcasting; the CA lawfully issued and applied the Codes within its statutory powers; the CA's factual assessments and sanction were not irrational and were adequately reasoned; BOR10 was not engaged because the CA's determinations were public‑law regulatory judgments rather than determinations of civil rights requiring a judicial tribunal. Accordingly the judicial review applications were dismissed.
31 Dec 2020

TELEVISION BROADCAST LTD v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2017

The court held the Relevant Paragraphs (Paragraph 1 Chapter 11 TV Programme Code and Paragraph 10(a) Chapter 9 TV Advertising Code) are sufficiently certain and prescribed by law, pursue legitimate aims (consumer protection and viewing interests), and are proportionate. The CA acted within its statutory powers (BMPO/BO/licence conditions). The CA had reasonable factual grounds to find the KFC and Scoop segments breached the Codes, its decisions were not irrational and gave adequate reasons, and the HK$150,000 penalty was within statutory limits and not excessive. The enforcement/appeal scheme…
28 Feb 2014

HKSAR v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA426/2013

The appellate court confirmed the magistrate's finding that the system of work lacked a reasonably practicable safety requirement that both signalmen independently confirm clearance before lifting; that omission rendered the system unsafe so far as reasonably practicable; the appellant failed to discharge the statutory defence under s.18; and common law defences of honest and reasonable belief and due diligence are not available in the face of the statutory defence. Accordingly the convictions were upheld.
3 Jul 2007

SMARTFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH MING CENTRE BLOCK C

Citation

SMARTFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH MING CENTRE BLOCK C
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM152/2006

The Applicant's use of the premises as an RCHE constituted a domestic use (boarding-house) in breach of the Occupation Permit and DMC Clause 14(d); the Manager was entitled under express DMC powers (Clauses 7(d)(23),(24) and 7(e)) to forbid lift use pending rectification; the Respondent's actions did not unreasonably interfere with use of common parts under BMO s34I nor breach s18(2A) because Codes of Practice are guidance and there was no demonstrated hazard or failure of fire access.
3 Oct 2002

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. The Management Committee of the Incorporated Owners of Grenville House

Citation

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. The Management Committee of the Incorporated Owners of Grenville House
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM107/2002

The Building Management Ordinance and its Schedules do not impose mandatory statutory duties on the management committee or manager to seek owners' consent for expenditure exceeding budgeted sums or to prepare revised budgets; Codes of Practice under section 44 are advisory; appointment of a manager lies within the management committee's powers and does not require owners' approval; the duty to display certified minutes rests with the committee secretary; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the advisory relief sought. Therefore the applications fail and are dismissed.
3 Oct 2002

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. FPD Savills Property Management Ltd.

Citation

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. FPD Savills Property Management Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM105/2002

The Tribunal dismissed all applications because the statutory framework and schedules do not impose the mandatory obligations alleged by the Applicant: neither the Fifth nor Seventh Schedule compels a revised budget; Sections 20A and 44 and associated Codes of Practice are advisory not binding; the management committee may appoint a manager under its statutory powers without prior owners' consent; the obligation to display minutes rests with the committee secretary not the manager; and the Tribunal cannot give the general advisory guidance sought outside its statutory jurisdiction.
3 Oct 2002

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. FPD Savills Property Management Ltd.

Citation

Wong Tak Keung, Stanley v. FPD Savills Property Management Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM106/2002

The Tribunal held that the Ordinance and its Schedules do not impose a statutory obligation on the management committee or manager to prepare revised budgets or to seek owners' consent when expenditures exceed budgeted sums; Codes of Practice and Section 20A/44 are advisory only; appointment of a manager does not require owners' approval under the Ordinance and lies within the committee's powers; the duty to display certified minutes rests with the committee secretary, not the manager; accordingly all applications were dismissed and costs ordered against the applicant.
15 May 2001

Pokfulam Development Co. Ltd. and Others v. The Incorporated Owners of Scenic Villas

Citation

Pokfulam Development Co. Ltd. and Others v. The Incorporated Owners of Scenic Villas
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM70/2000

The Codes of Practice are directory guidelines rather than subsidiary legislation and therefore are not mandatory; publication in the Gazette does not by itself confer legislative status; the Management Committee's act of 'receiving' the Renovation Committee report constituted approval of the contract awards; accordingly the review is dismissed and the original judgment is upheld.