1 Jun 1989
THE QUEEN v. HO PING YAN
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. HO PING YAN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA303/1989
Because the licence term 'haberdashery' (Chinese 'miscellaneous goods') was ambiguous, the appellant had no notice that leather coats were excluded, and there were special reasons, the mandatory forfeiture under S.86A(1) did not apply; the forfeiture order was set aside.