DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region FACV No. 5 of 2005 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2005 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 43 OF 2004) _____________________ Between: TRIPOLE TRADING LIMITED 1st Defendant/Appellant ZHENG LIE LIE 2nd Defendant/Appellant DING PENG 4th Defendant/Appellant - and - PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LIMITED Plaintiff/Respondent _____________________ FACV No. 6 of 2005 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2005 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 35 OF 2004) _____________________ Between: DING PENG 1st Defendant/Appellant ZHENG LIE LIE 2nd Defendant/Appellant CHINA PROJECTS LIMITED 5th Defendant/Appellant - and - PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff/Respondent _____________________ - 2 - Court: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ Dates of Hearing: 7, 8 and 9 December 2005 Date of Judgment: 5 January 2006 J U D G M E N T Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ : 1. We would allow both appeals and make the orders proposed by Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Litton NPJ in their joint judgment, doing so for the reasons given in that joint judgment and in Lord Hoffmann NPJ’s judgment. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Litton NPJ : Introduction 2. These two appeals (heard together) concern the equitable remedies that might properly flow from admitted breaches of fiduciary duties on the part of company directors. 3. There are two plaintiffs. One is Prosperfield Ventures Ltd (“Prosperfield”); the other is Panco Industrial Holdings Ltd (“Panco”). The complaint of these companies, in bare outline, is that two of their directors Ding Peng (“Madam Ding”) and Zheng Lie Lie (“Mr Zheng”) acted in - 3 - breach of their fiduciary duties as directors, to their personal benefit, causing loss to the companies. 4. In each case the duties of the directors, as pleaded in the statement of claim, were in essence these : (a) to act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the companies; (b) not to enter into arrangements where his or her personal interest conflicted with those of the companies, unless with the companies’ consent. Prosperfield’s pleaded case against Tripole 5. In the case of Prosperfield the wrongful act as pleaded was this : By an agreement dated 11 June 1993, Madam Ding and Mr Zheng , as directors of Prosperfield, caused Prosperfield to (a) sell to a Hong Kong company, Tripole Trading Limited (“Tripole”) the entire share capital of Crofton Profits Limited (“Crofton”), a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, and one share in Panco and (b) assign to Tripole a debt of $160.5 million owed allegedly by Shenzhen Champaign Industrial Corporation Limited (“SCIC”), a company incorporated and registered in Shenzhen. Madam Ding and Mr Zheng had (indirectly) a considerable beneficial interest in Tripole. They were two of its directors. 6. The entire shares in Crofton, the one share in Panco and the SCIC debt constituted the whole of Prosperfield’s assets. 7. Crofton in turn held all but one share in Panco (the remaining one share being the one registered in Prosperfield’s name). Panco was the - 4 - registered owner of 45,661,500 SCIC shares constituting 50.735% of SCIC’s issued shares (the bulk of which had apparently been pledged by Panco as security for bank loans made to SCIC). Accordingly, this sale would on its face (subject to certain important qualifications discussed below) give Tripole control of SCIC. 8. Under the agreement, Tripole was not actually to pay anything for either the shares or the assignment: Prosperfield was to lend Tripole the money to pay the purchase price. Completion of this agreement would result in Prosperfield having parted with its shares in Crofton and Panco and having assigned away its alleged SCIC debt. In their place would be debts in the respective sums of $450 million and $160.5 million owing by Tripole. 9. However, by the terms of the agreement, the $450 million debt would be wholly waived (without the Crofton shares or the SCIC debt reverting to Prosperfield) unless all SCIC shares pledged to banks were released and the share certificates returned to Panco within two years of the agreement, and also unless Panco’s rights as registered owner remained unaffected by any measures taken by mainland governmental authorities. The debt of $160.5 million was only to be repayable if and when Tripole fully recovered the debt allegedly owing by SCIC. 10. In the circumstances, such consideration for the sale and assignment was obviously, as Prosperfield pleads, “illusory”: The terms of the agreement made it almost certain that the loan would never have to be repaid by Tripole. In causing Prosperfield to enter into such an agreement, the directors, particularly Madam Ding and Mr Zheng, were effectively misappropriating all of Prosperfield’s assets by transferring them for nothing - 5 - to Tripole, a company in which they were interested. If all this was proved, the directors would clearly have been in breach of their fiduciary duty to Prosperfield. 11. This is precisely what the Prosperfield Statement of Claim alleges did happen. Paragraph 11 pleads that there was completion of the 11 June agreement by execution of bought and sold notes for the Crofton shares (although no mention is made of the Panco share) and by execution of a deed of assignment in relation to the debt. And paragraph 19 pleads that Tripole obtained transfer of the shares and of the debt and is accordingly liable for knowing receipt of property transferred in breach of fiduciary duty. 12. A proprietary remedy is claimed against Tripole by way of a constructive trust imposed on the shares and the debt. Personal remedies by way of “damages” are sought against the directors, alleging loss to Prosperfield of its assets. An account is sought against the directors of “any benefit received by them in relation to the Agreement” (§23). 13. The pleaded breach of fiduciary duty is therefore simple. Prosperfield’s directors are alleged, by acts performed under the 11 June agreement, to have deprived Prosperfield of its assets, giving them to Tripole, a company in which they were personally interested, effectively in return for nothing. Panco’s pleaded case against China Projects 14. Panco’s pleaded case is similar although the circumstances make its resolution much more complicated. It centres on an agreement which its directors Madam Ding and Mr Zheng caused to be made with - 6 - China Projects Limited (a Hong Kong company) dated 17 June 1993, about a week after the Prosperfield agreement. 15. As noted above, Panco was then the registered owner of 45,661,500 shares constituting 50.735% of SCIC. It is alleged that Panco was also owed $160.5 million by SCIC. By the agreement of 17 June, Panco was to sell to China Projects all its SCIC shares for $450 million; and to assign to China Projects its SCIC debt for the sum of $60 million. Again, China Projects did not need actually to pay anything, but would be “lent” the means to pay the purchase price by Panco. Yet again, the money so borrowed (totalling $510 million) would only need to be repaid if Panco’s rights as registered owner of the SCIC shares remained unaffected by governmental action in Shenzhen and if those SCIC shares pledged to banks had been wholly released within two years. Such consideration was again plainly illusory, as the statement of claim alleged : If completed, the agreement would have deprived Panco of its 45,661,500 shares and its alleged SCIC debt, leaving it merely with a debt of $510 million owing by China Projects which, in the circumstances, would never need to be repaid. 16. China Projects was owned as to 50% (indirectly) by Madam Ding and Mr Zheng. They were two of its directors. 17. Panco’s board, comprising Madam Ding, Mr Zheng and two others, purportedly authorized the agreement (§12). 18. Causing Panco to enter into this agreement is pleaded to be a breach of fiduciary duty. Once again, a proprietary remedy is claimed against China Projects on the footing that it knowingly received property - 7 - transferred to it in breach of fiduciary duty (§17) constituting it constructive trustee of the property so received. However, the Amended Statement of Claim also pleads as follows: “Under the terms of a Restructuring of SCIC on 5 September 1995 [a typographical error for 1993], SCIC became known as Shenzhen Fountain Corporation (“SFC”) and [China Projects] became the holder of 38.25% of the shares in SFC ...” 19. The statement of claim is silent as to the significance of the “Restructuring of SCIC” and of the date “5 September 1993”. Without any explanation, the claim shifts to a proprietary claim against those SFC shares. On the facts as emerged at the trial these shares (38.25% of the issued capital of SFC) were obviously not transferred to China Projects under the 17 June agreement since they only came into existence pursuant to a restructuring exercise in Shenzhen occurring some two and a half months later (as will be explained below). They also represent a different percentage holding in the company. Panco’s claim simply elides the two parcels of shares, asserting that SFC is the same corporation as SCIC, having merely undergone a name change : Hence, it is assumed that the SFC shares must somehow represent the original SCIC shares. 20. Personal remedies are sought against Madam Ding and Mr Zheng as directors in respect of loss allegedly caused to Panco by depriving it of its assets and also for an account “of all profits received [by them] arising from such purported sale under the [17 June] Agreement”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rule of Law in an Evolving Democracy Syed Kemal Bokhary* I
    THE RULE OF LAW IN AN EVOLVING DEMOCRACY Syed Kemal Bokhary* No democratic arrangement is perfect. All are open to abuse. Still democracy’s blessings are self-evident. Hong Kong’s democracy is evolving, and still far from fully realised. Everybody agrees that an increase is needed. But the pace and form of the increase are matters of political controversy. Absent full democracy, can the rule of law prevail? Yes, but only on certain conditions. There has to be independent judicial stewardship of an entrenched constitution. Powers must be properly separated. Human rights must be protected conformably with international norms.1 And the existence of the rule of law must not be treated as justification for delay in democratic development. Without defining the rule of law, these conditions illustrate its nature. I. Judicial Independence and an Entrenched Constitution Our judiciary – as I have previously explained in Hong Kong2, in Mainland China 3 and overseas 4 – is independent. And it is well served by an able profession, a learned academy, a free media and an alert population. Hong Kong’s constitution is entrenched. Initially our constitutional instruments were the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions. In 1991 they were joined by the Bill of Rights which is modelled on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Today our constitution is the Basic Law. It came into force upon the handover by which Chinese sovereignty of Hong Kong was resumed on 1 July 1997. By its preamble, the Basic Law declares the “one country, two systems” principle. It is pursuant to this principle that Hong Kong’s system is preserved different from the Mainland’s.
    [Show full text]
  • APRES Moi LE DELUGE"? JUDICIAL Review in HONG KONG SINCE BRITAIN RELINQUISHED SOVEREIGNTY
    "APRES MoI LE DELUGE"? JUDICIAL REvIEw IN HONG KONG SINCE BRITAIN RELINQUISHED SOVEREIGNTY Tahirih V. Lee* INTRODUCTION One of the burning questions stemming from China's promise that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) would enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" is whether the HKSAR's courts would have the authority to review issues of constitutional magnitude and, if so, whether their decisions on these issues would stand free of interference by the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 promulgated in PRC law and international law a guaranty that implied a positive answer to this question: "the judicial system previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained except for those changes consequent upon the vesting in the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the power of final adjudication."' The PRC further promised in the Joint Declaration that the "Uludicial power" that was to "be vested in the courts" of the SAR was to be exercised "independently and free from any interference."2 The only limit upon the discretion of judicial decisions mentioned in the Joint Declaration was "the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and [to a lesser extent] precedents in other common law jurisdictions."3 Despite these promises, however, most of the academic and popular discussion about Hong Kong's judiciary in the United States, and much of it in Hong Kong, during the several years leading up to the reversion to Chinese sovereignty, revolved around a fear about its decline after the reversion.4 The * Associate Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
    FACV Nos. 9 & 10 of 2006 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NOS. 9 & 10 OF 2006 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NOS. 297 & 298 OF 2004) _______________________ Between: SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH Plaintiff (Respondent) - and - HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER 1st Defendant (1st Appellant) EGANAGOLDPFEIL (HOLDINGS) LIMITED 2nd Defendant (2nd Appellant) _______________________ Court: Chief Justice Li , Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice McHugh NPJ Dates of Hearing: 15, 16 and 18 January 2007 Date of Judgment: 9 February 2007 _______________________ J U D G M E N T _______________________ Chief Justice Li: 1. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. — 2 — Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 2. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. Mr Justice Chan PJ: 3. I have read the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ in draft. I agree entirely with his comprehensive analysis and conclusions. I too would dispose of these appeals as proposed by him in the concluding paragraph of his judgment. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: A. The parties and the issues 4. On 19 September 1992, the plaintiff (“Mr Unruh”) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (“the MoA”) with the 1st defendant (“Mr Seeberger”). The MoA provides that under certain circumstances, Mr Unruh is to become entitled to payment of a “Special Bonus”. Mr Unruh contends that such entitlement has arisen and, not having been paid, brought proceedings to recover the same from Mr Seeberger and from the 2nd defendant (“Egana”, formerly called Haru International (Holdings) Limited).
    [Show full text]
  • Paths of Justice
    PATHS OF JUSTICE Johannes M. M. Chan http://www.pbookshop.com Hong Kong University Press The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road Hong Kong www.hkupress.hku.hk © 2018 Hong Kong University Press ISBN 978-988-8455-93-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-988-8455-94-2 (Paperback) All rights reserved. No http://www.pbookshop.comportion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound in Hong Kong, China Preface What is justice? Can justice be done? Jurists and philosophers have been asking these questions for centuries. While there is a huge body of learned work on these questions, no theory can tell what justice is or whether justice has been done in any particular case. At the end of the day, justice perhaps just lies in the hearts of ordinary people. Like the concept of the reasonable man, justice may not be something that can be formulated in abstraction but by and large is something that we recognize when we see it in practice. I have long wanted to write a book to explore these themes through real cases. As an academic lawyer, I have the privilege of being involved in the two related but in fact quite separate worlds of academia and legal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2003
    Ɂࡗؒ̇ ઐᔈկࡗผంй Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission 2003 ͌፣ Contents Ӱک Foreword ................................................................................................................................... i ௃ ࠒ Chapter Pages Ɂࡗઐᔈկࡗผؒ̇ 1 The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission ...................................................... 1 – 7 կࡗผؿɮА 2 Work of the Commission .................................................................................................. 8 – 9 ୄᄗؒ৑ࠖ࢐ؒւʥୄᄗؒ৑ 3 Chief Justice and the Court of Final Appeal .................................................................... 10 – 14 ঢ়೩ؒ৑ 4 High Court ........................................................................................................................ 15 – 21 ਟؒ৑ʥɠΔᄗസ୮ਂ 5 District Court and Lands Tribunal ..................................................................................... 22 – 27 സРؒ৑dᄗസ୮ʥϋΐസРؒ࢓ 6 Magistrates’ Courts, Tribunals and Coroner’s Court......................................................... 28 – 31 ፣ڃ Appendix α 7 ˂ 1 ˀϭ 2005 α 6 ˂ 30 ˀଊ։ͨ౨ʑ̇ؒɁࡗઐᔈկࡗผ˚࢐ʥկࡗؿᓯዃ 2003 1 Bio-data of the Chairman and Members of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission for the current term 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2005........................................ 32 – 35 Έඖ̇ؒᓻϽؿؒց߬ұ 2 Statutory Requirements for Various Judicial Offices ........................................................ 36 – 43 Ӱ Forewordک Ɏcȹ࠯ዟ͓ An independent Judiciary upholding the rule ofڬΕȹਝԭԹؿࡈ ࠗಋԞ႓ law is of cardinal importance to Hong Kong
    [Show full text]
  • 香港特别行政区排名名单 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
    二零二一年九月 September 2021 香港特别行政区排名名单 THE PRECEDENCE LIST OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 1. 行政长官 林郑月娥女士，大紫荆勋贤，GBS The Chief Executive The Hon Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, GBM, GBS 2. 终审法院首席法官 张举能首席法官，大紫荆勋贤 The Chief Justice of the Court of Final The Hon Andrew CHEUNG Kui-nung, Appeal GBM 3. 香港特别行政区前任行政长官(见注一) Former Chief Executives of the HKSAR (See Note 1) 董建华先生，大紫荆勋贤 The Hon TUNG Chee Hwa, GBM 曾荫权先生，大紫荆勋贤 The Hon Donald TSANG, GBM 梁振英先生，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon C Y LEUNG, GBM, GBS, JP 4. 政务司司长 李家超先生，SBS, PDSM, JP The Chief Secretary for Administration The Hon John LEE Ka-chiu, SBS, PDSM, JP 5. 财政司司长 陈茂波先生，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, MH, JP The Financial Secretary The Hon Paul CHAN Mo-po, GBM, GBS, MH, JP 6. 律政司司长 郑若骅女士，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, SC, JP The Secretary for Justice The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBM, GBS, SC, JP 7. 立法会主席 梁君彦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The President of the Legislative Council The Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, GBM, GBS, JP - 2 - 行政会议非官守议员召集人 陈智思议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Convenor of the Non-official The Hon Bernard Charnwut CHAN, Members of the Executive Council GBM, GBS, JP 其他行政会议成员 Other Members of the Executive Council 史美伦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Laura CHA SHIH May-lung, GBM, GBS, JP 李国章议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP Prof the Hon Arthur LI Kwok-cheung, GBM, GBS, JP 周松岗议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon CHOW Chung-kong, GBM, GBS, JP 罗范椒芬议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Fanny LAW FAN Chiu-fun, GBM, GBS, JP 黄锦星议员，GBS, JP 环境局局长 The Hon WONG Kam-sing, GBS, JP Secretary for the Environment # 林健锋议员，GBS, JP The Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP 叶国谦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
    FACV No. 17 of 2008 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2008 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 248 OF 2006) _____________________ Between : PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD Plaintiff (Appellant) - and - LAU KWOK FAI 1st Defendant (Respondent) ALBERT K.K. LUK & CO. (a firm) 2nd Defendant K.F. LAU & CO. (a firm) 3rd Defendant (Respondent) _____________________ FACV No. 18 of 2008 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2008 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 245 OF 2006) _____________________ - 2 - Between : PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD Plaintiff (Appellant) - and – LAU KWOK FAI 1st Defendant ALBERT K.K. LUK & CO. (a firm) 2nd Defendant (Respondent) K.F. LAU & CO. (a firm) 3rd Defendant _____________________ Court : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ Dates of Hearing : 9 to 11 February 2009 Date of Judgment : 27 February 2009 J U D G M E N T Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : 1. I agree with the judgment of Lord Hoffmann NPJ. Mr Justice Chan PJ : 2. I agree with the judgment of Lord Hoffmann NPJ. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ : 3. I agree with the judgment of Lord Hoffmann NPJ. - 3 - Mr Justice Litton NPJ : 4. On 1 June 2006, after trial, the judge ordered Danny Lau to pay to Peconic the sum of HK$350,534,416, leaving the question of interest and cost for later determination. He also gave judgment against the firms Albert K.K.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue Secretary for Justice
    Features Message from the In This Issue Secretary for Justice The Department of Justice is excited to present Features the inaugural issue of "Justice in Focus", a new HK Legal Week 2019...... .................. ............................................... .. 01 publication for sharing with the international and Vision 2030 for the Rule of Law......... ............................................... .. 04 local communities our work and our continuous HK Arbitration Week .......................... ............................................... .. 05 efforts in delivering our pledge - "Rule of Law and Investment Law and Investor State Mediator Training ......................... 05 Justice for All". Public Consultation on the CISG ......................................................... 06 Online Dispute Resolution Developments under APEC ...................... 08 In this inaugural issue, you will find news about the major activities and events organised by the What's New? Department or attended by our officers around the Legal Updates................ ..................................................................... 09 world from late 2019 to early 2020. You will also find New Legislation for Fighting COVID-19 ............................................... 1O updates on the initiatives of the Department and relevant legislative or policy proposals discussed at Global and Mainland Connections the Legislative Council. We hope you enjoy reading DOJ Global and Mainland Connections Map......................... .. ....... 12 Justice
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Rainstorm Disasters 1972
    FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE RAINSTORM DISASTERS 1972 GEO REPORT No. 229 T.L. Yang, S. Mackey & E. Cumine GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE CIVIL ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE RAINSTORM DISASTERS 1972 GEO REPORT No. 229 T.L. Yang, S. Mackey & E. Cumine This report is largely based on the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Rainstorm Disasters 1972 produced in November 1972 - 2 - © The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region First published, July 2008 Prepared by: Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Civil Engineering and Development Building, 101 Princess Margaret Road, Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong. - 3 - PREFACE In keeping with our policy of releasing information which may be of general interest to the geotechnical profession and the public, we make available selected internal reports in a series of publications termed the GEO Report series. The GEO Reports can be downloaded from the website of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (http://www.cedd.gov.hk) on the Internet. Printed copies are also available for some GEO Reports. For printed copies, a charge is made to cover the cost of printing. The Geotechnical Engineering Office also produces documents specifically for publication. These include guidance documents and results of comprehensive reviews. These publications and the printed GEO Reports may be obtained from the Government’s Information Services Department. Information on how to purchase these documents is given on the second last page of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • 香港特別行政區排名名單 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
    二零二一年九月 September 2021 香港特別行政區排名名單 THE PRECEDENCE LIST OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 1. 行政長官 林鄭月娥女士，大紫荊勳賢，GBS The Chief Executive The Hon Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, GBM, GBS 2. 終審法院首席法官 張舉能首席法官，大紫荊勳賢 The Chief Justice of the Court of Final The Hon Andrew CHEUNG Kui-nung, Appeal GBM 3. 香港特別行政區前任行政長官(見註一) Former Chief Executives of the HKSAR (See Note 1) 董建華先生，大紫荊勳賢 The Hon TUNG Chee Hwa, GBM 曾蔭權先生，大紫荊勳賢 The Hon Donald TSANG, GBM 梁振英先生，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon C Y LEUNG, GBM, GBS, JP 4. 政務司司長 李家超先生，SBS, PDSM, JP The Chief Secretary for Administration The Hon John LEE Ka-chiu, SBS, PDSM, JP 5. 財政司司長 陳茂波先生，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, MH, JP The Financial Secretary The Hon Paul CHAN Mo-po, GBM, GBS, MH, JP 6. 律政司司長 鄭若驊女士，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, SC, JP The Secretary for Justice The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBM, GBS, SC, JP 7. 立法會主席 梁君彥議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The President of the Legislative Council The Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, GBM, GBS, JP - 2 - 行政會議非官守議員召集人 陳智思議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Convenor of the Non-official The Hon Bernard Charnwut CHAN, Members of the Executive Council GBM, GBS, JP 其他行政會議成員 Other Members of the Executive Council 史美倫議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Laura CHA SHIH May-lung, GBM, GBS, JP 李國章議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP Prof the Hon Arthur LI Kwok-cheung, GBM, GBS, JP 周松崗議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon CHOW Chung-kong, GBM, GBS, JP 羅范椒芬議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Fanny LAW FAN Chiu-fun, GBM, GBS, JP 黃錦星議員，GBS, JP 環境局局長 The Hon WONG Kam-sing, GBS, JP Secretary for the Environment # 林健鋒議員，GBS, JP The Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP 葉國謙議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of the Honourable Mr. Justice Patrick Chan Siu-Oi
    Annex Curriculum Vitae of The Honourable Mr. Justice Patrick Chan Siu-oi 1. Personal Background Mr. Justice Patrick CHAN Siu-oi (“Mr. Justice Chan”) was born in Hong Kong on 21 October 1948. He is married with no children. 2. Education Mr. Justice Chan obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1974 and a Postgraduate Certificate in Laws in 1975 from the University of Hong Kong. 3. Legal Experience Mr. Justice Chan was called to the Hong Kong Bar in 1976. He was appointed an Honorary Bencher of the Inner Temple (England and Wales) in 2001. He was in private practice since 1977 until he joined the Judiciary as a District Judge in 1987. 4. Judicial Experience Mr. Justice Chan was appointed a District Judge on 9 November 1987. He was appointed Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court in January 1991 and a High Court Judge in May 1992. In July 1997, he was appointed the Chief Judge of the High Court. He was elevated to the Court of Final Appeal as a Permanent Judge on 1 September 2000. 5. Service and Activities related to the Legal Field Past Member, District Court Rules Committee Past President, Lands Tribunal 1 Past Chairman, the Chief Justice’s Working Party on the Use of Chinese in the District Court Past Chairman, the Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Procedure Reform in the High Court Past Member and then Chairman, Release Under Supervision Board Past Member, Judicial Service Commission Past Member, Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Past Member, Law Reform Commission Current Member, Rules Committee of the Court of Final Appeal Current Vice-Chairman, Working Group on the Use of Chinese Current Chairman, the Chief Justice’s Committee on Judicial Remuneration Current Chairman, Standing Committee on Legal Education and Training 6.
    [Show full text]
  • FACC No 12, 13& 14 of 2012 in the COURT of FINAL APPEAL of THE
    28/11/2019 FACC12/2012 HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG Press Summary (English) Press Summary (Chinese) FACC No 12, 13& 14 of 2012 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NOS12, 13 AND 14 OF 2012 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPEAL FROM HCMA NO 193 OF 2012) _______________________ FACC No 12 of 2012 BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and CHOW NOK HANG（周諾恆） Appellant _______________________ FACC No 13 of 2012 BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and WONG HIN WAI（⿈軒瑋） Appellant _______________________ FACC No 14 of 2012 BETWEEN HKSAR Appellant and CHOW NOK HANG（周諾恆） 1stRespondent https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=90177&QS=%28right%2Bto%2Bpeaceful%2Bassembly%29%7C%28leun… 1/85 28/11/2019 FACC12/2012 HKSAR v. CHOW NOK HANG WONG HIN WAI（⿈軒瑋） 2nd Respondent _______________________ Court: Mr Justice Chan Acting CJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Millett NPJ Date of Hearing: 9 October 2013 Date of Judgment: 18 November 2013 _______________________ J U D G M E N T _______________________ Mr Justice Chan, Acting CJ: 1. The freedom of expression may take many forms. As was involved in the present case, they include the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of demonstration. The right to the freedom of expression is guaranteed by art 27 of the Basic Law and art 17 of the Bill of Rights. This is a fundamental right to enable any person to air his grievances and to express his views on matters of public interest.
    [Show full text]