Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Purposive construction

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2020

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD v. WISDOM TOP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA278/2019

Clause 34.1 is exclusive only insofar as it obliges the defendant (Wisdom Top) to sue in Hong Kong but is not exclusive insofar as it permits the plaintiff (ICBC) to sue elsewhere; because the lender's ability to sue outside Hong Kong defeats the statutory requirement of an agreement to the exclusion of other courts under s.3(1) Cap 597, the jurisdiction clause is not a 'choice of Hong Kong court agreement' for purposes of the Ordinance and the Registrar's refusal to certify is upheld.
21 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. LEONORA YUNG, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHENG CHEE-TOCK THEODORE, DECEASED

Citation

HKSAR v. LEONORA YUNG, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHENG CHEE-TOCK THEODORE, DECEASED
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2014

The convictions were quashed because the prosecution failed to prove a connected transaction as required by the Listing Rules: Cheng was not a party to the acquisition, his shareholding in SSI did not give him a proprietary interest in the 17/F property, there was insufficient evidence to establish agency or trust relationships that would make the transaction effectively between CYF and Cheng, and the Listing Rules cannot be extended by purposive construction to treat an SSI–CYF sale as a transaction 'between' CYF and Cheng; absent a connected transaction, the elements of conspiracy to defrau…
12 Mar 2010

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2009

Regulation 41(1) of the Building (Planning) Regulations applies to building works carried out or to be carried out in existing buildings as well as new buildings; no legal distinction is to be drawn between new and existing buildings or between structural and non‑structural works for the purpose of the regulation, and the Appeal Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.
7 Mar 2008

KENSLAND REALTY LTD v. TAI, TANG CHONG

Citation

KENSLAND REALTY LTD v. TAI, TANG CHONG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2007

The cause of action accrued on 2 September 1997 when Kensland acted on TTC's advice and incurred liability; Kensland had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the damage and its attributability by the end of November 1997 so s.31 did not extend time; appeal dismissed as statute-barred.
9 Mar 2000

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR

Citation

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC2/1999

The apprentices were not employees of The Hong Kong Jockey Club within the ordinary meaning of "employee" and therefore were not "public servants" under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; the Club's administrative powers, rule‑making, payments and provisions did not establish an employer‑employee relationship and purposive construction could not override the ordinary meaning of the statutory words. Consequently the convictions based on s4(1)(a) were unsafe and were quashed.
19 Dec 1997

LEUNG MAY LING AND OTHERS v. LEUNG SAI LUN ROBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG MAY LING AND OTHERS v. LEUNG SAI LUN ROBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/1997

The Court held that the 1985 registry marriage was a valid statutory marriage within the ordinary meaning of 'marriage' in s.13(1) and therefore revoked the 1967 will; purposive construction did not justify reading limiting words into s.13(1) in the context of Hong Kong law and s.38 marriages and Lord Diplock's conditions for reading words into an Act were not satisfied.
12 Mar 1997

R. v. TSE HING SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

R. v. TSE HING SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1395/1996

A purposive construction applies: 'disembark' in the definition of 'land' encompasses leaving a ship onto substantial, secured structures in Hong Kong territorial waters (such as fish rafts). There was no real conflict between the English and Chinese texts; the legislative object of controlling unlawful entry requires that persons who entered and remained on such structures be liable under s.38(1)(b). The magistrate's construction was correct and the convictions are supported by the evidence.

Hong Kong Case Law

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD v. WISDOM TOP INTERNATIONAL LTD

HKSAR v. LEONORA YUNG, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHENG CHEE-TOCK THEODORE, DECEASED

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

KENSLAND REALTY LTD v. TAI, TANG CHONG

NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR

LEUNG MAY LING AND OTHERS v. LEUNG SAI LUN ROBERT AND OTHERS

R. v. TSE HING SAN AND OTHERS