DOCSLIB.ORG

Cacv 312/2005 in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cacv 312/2005 in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2005 CACV 312/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2005 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 11077 OF 1994) BETWEEN ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LIMITED Plaintiff And THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI 1st Defendant BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED WAYFOONG PROPERTY LIMITED 2nd Defendant (formerly known as HS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED) AND BETWEEN MAGIC SCORE LIMITED Plaintiff And THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI 1st Defendant BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED WAYFOONG PROPERTY LIMITED 2nd Defendant (formerly known as HS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED) (by original writ and order to carry on) Before: Hon Rogers VP, Stock and Tang JJA in Court Date of Hearing: 5-8 & 11-13 September 2006 Date of Handing Down Judgment: 12 October 2006 ______________________ J U D G M E N T ______________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1. This was an appeal from the judgment Waung J given on 19 July 2005. The claims in the case arose out of the sale of a commercial property, Li Fung House, Kowloon, (also referred to below as “the property”) which was effected as part of a restructuring agreement directed to bringing to an end the protracted period during which the plaintiff, Esquire (Electronics) Ltd (“Esquire”) had been insolvent and had had to be “rescued” by a consortium of banks of which the first defendant (“the Bank”) was the lead bank. In the judgment the judge held that the plaintiff had established liability against the Bank on its claims in respect of breach of fiduciary duty, economic duress and undue influence. Decisions as to remedies and reliefs to which the plaintiff might be entitled were left to be decided as a separate matter. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal this court did not consider it necessary to hear argument on the question of limitation, thus, in effect, indicating that the appeal would be allowed. The reasons for so doing were that, on any footing, the Bank had not acted in breach of any fiduciary duty, it had not inflicted economic duress and it had not been guilty of exerting any undue influence. 3. In his judgment, the judge set out at some length, an analysis of the various authorities relevant to each head of claim. Before considering the law in relation to each aspect it is important to ascertain the facts. In this respect, the first matter which must be observed is the length of time which elapsed between the conclusion of the trial of the action on 12 March 2004 and the delivery of judgment, more than 16 months later, on 19 July 2005. 4. The Court of Final Appeal has in other cases made clear that such a lengthy period of delay is unacceptable. It has done so for very good reasons. Quite apart from the effect on the parties and the adverse effect on the public confidence in the due administration of justice which such a delay has, a period of delay, even considerably shorter than 16 months, immediately raises the question as to how much of what transpired at trial could have been remembered by the judge. Unfortunately in this case there are factors which indicate that the judge must have forgotten important events and aspects of the trial. 5. Comparing the transcript and the judgment there are areas which clearly lead to the conclusion that the judge must have forgotten important conclusions to which he had arrived in the course of hearing the case. What a judge says in the course of argument cannot be taken to be his final view on a matter, but it is entirely different if a judge, in effect, stops counsel in the course of submissions on a particular point. He then might be said to be exercising a case management function. If a judge does stop counsel from addressing him on a particular point, although it cannot bind him irrevocably in respect of that point, the better course may be to give the party concerned an opportunity of addressing the court further should the judge, on reflection, form a different view. At the very least, the party concerned would be entitled to an acknowledgment of the change in the judge’s conclusion on the point and a full explanation as to the judge’s thinking. The lapses in this case, in this regard, are almost certainly attributable to the delay in the preparation of the judgment having led the judge to forget important factors and the conclusions to which he arrived as a result of them. 6. The importance of the delay goes further. A trial which lasts 24 working days, of itself, puts a strain on the memory of the judge as to what took place. Nevertheless, where there has been no significant delay in giving judgment, an appellate court is entitled to assume that the mere failure to refer to a part of the evidence does not mean that the judge has overlooked it or that other forms of error have occurred. But delay in preparation of a judgment complicates matters because, as was said by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd 209 ALR 568 at paragraph 72: “However, where there is significant delay, no favourable assumptions can be made. In such circumstances, it is up to the trial judge to put beyond question any suggestion that he or she has lost an understanding of the issues.” 7. This case is made even more complicated in this respect by the fact that the events in question took place some 17 years before the trial of the action. In such circumstances contemporaneous documentation is usually of the highest importance. In a number of important respects, the judge did not accept contemporaneous documents as being accurate. That rejection must fall to be considered carefully in the light of all the relevant facts and evidence. One of the matters to which this court has had to give consideration was as to how far the judge’s rejection of contemporaneous documentation can be sustained, particularly if the documentation of one party has been said to be inaccurate but the judge has not referred to the fact that the documentation from the opposing party supports the accuracy of the documentation that has not been accepted. BACKGROUND 8. The starting point of an analysis of the facts in this case is the purchase of Li Fung House by Esquire in September 1981. At the time Esquire was involved in trading in consumer electronics as an importer and exporter and a retailer as well as a wholesaler. It had been founded sometime prior to the purchase of the property by Sabahagchand Choithramanni Gurdas (“Gurdas”) who held 50% of the shares, the other 50% of the Esquire shares was held by his brother Sabahagchand Choithramani Arajan (“Arjan”). Gurdas’ witness statement puts the commencement of business by Arjan and himself as 1965. 9. In August 1981 Esquire obtained a valuation of the property at $151 million. It was at the time the tenant of part of the ground floor of the building and the first floor. Despite the valuation Esquire purchased the property in September 1981 for $180 million. It is possible that at the time inflation was running high: the best lending rate reached 20% in October 1981. The prevalence of inflation at the time might have influenced the thinking of Gurdas as to the advisability of the purchase at what at the time might have been considered a high price. Esquire obtained a loan of $180 million from the Bank for the purchase. The loan was to be repayable as to the first $30 million by 31 December 1982 as to the next $30 million by 1 June 1983 and the remainder over a five-year period. 10. The property was, of course, subject to a mortgage and for banking purposes that was calculated at a value of $166 million. It is noteworthy that the first tranche of repayments (the two repayments of $30 million each) were to be made from the sale of other property assets and the General Manager of the Bank at the time indicated his serious concern as to those sales happening. The annual turnover of Esquire was said to have been $565 million with a net profit of $16.2 million and that was sufficient to enable consent for the loan to be given. The further charge and mortgage which was dated 30 October 1981 provided for banking facilities up to $300 million and was in standard form of an assignment by way of first legal mortgage of amongst other things Li Fung House; the monies secured were repayable on demand. The 1984 restructuring 11. All did not go well for Esquire in subsequent years. Possibly associated with the difficulties which arose in Hong Kong commencing in 1982, financial difficulties arose which necessitated Esquire first of all seeking further facilities and subsequently a restructuring arrangement with its bankers. There were altogether five banks involved including the Bank. By far the largest amount owing was that to the Bank namely $309 million. This was divided notionally into the Bank’s non- property portion of something over $127 million and the property portion, which was something over $182 million. The Bank’s non-property portion, on its own, represented some 62% of the money owing to all the banks. 12. By an agreement dated 22 February 1984 Esquire, Gurdas, Arjan and the banks entered what has been termed a restructuring agreement. The effect of the agreement was that the debts owing to the banks would be treated as frozen debt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales
    The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Middle Society Honourable the The of 2019 Issue 59 Michaelmas 2019 Issue 59 Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales Practice Note (Relevance of Law Reporting) [2019] ICLR 1 Catchwords — Indexing of case law — Structured taxonomy of subject matter — Identification of legal issues raised in particular cases — Legal and factual context — “Words and phrases” con- strued — Relevant legislation — European and International instruments The common law, whose origins were said to date from the reign of King Henry II, was based on the notion of a single set of laws consistently applied across the whole of England and Wales. A key element in its consistency was the principle of stare decisis, according to which decisions of the senior courts created binding precedents to be followed by courts of equal or lower status in later cases. In order to follow a precedent, the courts first needed to be aware of its existence, which in turn meant that it had to be recorded and published in some way. Reporting of cases began in the form of the Year Books, which in the 16th century gave way to the publication of cases by individual reporters, known collectively as the Nominate Reports. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the variety of reports and the variability of their quality were such as to provoke increasing criticism from senior practitioners and the judiciary. The solution proposed was the establishment of a body, backed by the Inns of Court and the Law Society, which would be responsible for the publication of accurate coverage of the decisions of senior courts in England and Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • (2015-16) Volume 30 Inland Revenue Board of Review Decisions in the Court of the Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administr
    (2015-16) VOLUME 30 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS FACV No 16 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF THE FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO 16 OF 2015 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO 41 OF 2010) ____________________________ BETWEEN st CHURCH BODY OF THE HONG KONG 1 Appellant st SHENG KUNG HUI (1 Respondent) nd HONG KONG SHENG 2 Appellant nd KUNG HUI FOUNDATION (2 Respondent) - and - COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent (Appellant) ____________________________ Before: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Chan NPJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ Date of Hearing: 8 January 2016 Date of Judgment: 4 February 2016 _______________________________ J U D G M E N T _______________________________ 377 (2015-16) VOLUME 30 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 1. I agree with the judgements of Mr Justice Tang and Mr Justice Fok PJJ and with the additional observations of Mr Justice Chan NPJ. Mr Justice Tang PJ: Introduction 2. Section 14 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap 112, provides that profits tax shall be chargeable — on every person carrying a trade in Hong Kong in respect of his assessable profits. Trade is defined in s 2 as including “every trade and manufacture, and every adventure and concern in the nature of trade”. 3. The respondents in this appeal by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (“the Commissioner”) are the Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui and the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation. They are respectively the incorporation of the Anglican Church in Hong Kong (“the Church Body”) and the incorporation of the Anglican Bishop of Hong Kong (“the Foundation”).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Appendices
    List of Appendices Appendix 1 130 Highlights of Events 2005 Appendix 2 134 List of Judges and Judicial Officers Appendix 3 139 Structure of Courts Appendix 4 140 Membership List of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Appendix 5 142 Membership List of the Court Users' Committees Appendix 6 146 Membership List of the Judicial Studies Board Appendix 7 148 Training Activities Organised / Co-ordinated by the Judicial Studies Board Appendix 8 154 Number of Visits and Visitors to the Judiciary in 2004 and 2005 Appendix 9 155 Expenditure and Revenue of the Judiciary for 2004-2005 Appendix 10 156 司法機構政務處的架構 Organisation of the Judiciary Administration Appendix 11 157 Number of Complaints Against Judges and Judicial Officers Appendix 12 158 Number of Complaints Against the Judiciary Administration 129 Appendix 1 Highlights of Events 2005 Date Events The Hon Mr Justice Tang, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, was appointed as Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court A nine-member delegation from the Supreme People’s Court, the People’s Republic of China, visited the Hong Kong Judiciary The Hon Mr Justice Henry Fryberg, Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, and Mr Simon Lee, Commissioner of Queensland Government Trade and Investment Office, Hong Kong and South China, visited the Hong Kong Judiciary The Chief Justice declared opening of the 2005 Legal Year A nine-member delegation led by Mr Kairat Mami, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, visited the Hong Kong
    [Show full text]
  • Cb(4)590/12-13(01)
    立法會 Legislative Council LC Paper No. CB(4)590/12-13(01) Ref : CB4/HS/1/12 Background brief prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat Subcommittee on Proposed Senior Judicial Appointments Purpose 1. This paper provides background information on the procedure for endorsement of senior judicial appointments by the Legislative Council ("LegCo") under Article 73(7) of the Basic Law ("BL 73(7)") and gives a brief account of the relevant discussions by LegCo committees. Relevant provisions of the Basic law and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) 2. BL 48(6) confers on the Chief Executive ("CE") the power and function to appoint judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures. In accordance with BL 88, judges shall be appointed by CE on the recommendation of an independent commission, namely, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission ("JORC"). 3. In the case of the appointment of judges of the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") and the Chief Judge of the High Court, BL 90 provides that CE shall, in addition to following the procedures prescribed in BL 88, obtain the endorsement of LegCo. Subject to the endorsement of LegCo, CE shall report such appointment to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record. BL 73(7) correspondingly confers on LegCo the power and function to endorse the appointment of CFA judges and the Chief Judge of High Court. Such procedure is also stipulated in section 7A of the CFA Ordinance. - 2 - JORC Membership 4. Pursuant to BL88 and the JORC Ordinance (Cap.
    [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]
  • Cacv 147/2010 in the High Court Of
    由此 A A B CACV 147/2010 B C C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE D D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL E E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2010 F F (ON APPEAL FROM HCCL 16 OF 2006) G G BETWEEN H H WANG RUIYUN Plaintiff I I and J J GEM GLOBAL YIELD FUND LIMITED Defendant K K L L M Before : Hon Tang Ag. CJHC, Cheung and Fok JJA in Court M Date of Hearing : 3 June 2011 N N Date of Judgment : 20 June 2011 O O P J U D G M E N T P Q Q Hon Tang Ag. CJHC : R R 1. I have the advantage of reading Cheung JA’s judgment S in draft. I agree with it and have nothing to add. S T T U U V V 由此 A A - 2 - B B C C D D Hon Cheung JA : E E 2. This is an appeal by the defendant against the F assessment of damages by Master de Souza. F G G Procedural background H H 3. On 22 March 2006 the plaintiff commenced the present I action against the defendant and obtained an injunction from Yam J I to restrain the defendant from dealing with certain shares in J J Bestway International Holdings Ltd (‘Bestway’) and from K K withdrawing money from an escrow account. After the service of the Amended Statement of Claim and the Defence and L L Counterclaim, the plaintiff obtained summary judgment from M M Stone J on 6 March 2007 against the defendant for HK$40,503,237.28 and HK$930,412.15.
    [Show full text]
  • FACV No. 8 of 2018 [2019] HKCFA 19 in the COURT of FINAL APPEAL
    FACV No. 8 of 2018 [2019] HKCFA 19 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2018 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 126 OF 2017) _________________________ BETWEEN LEUNG CHUN KWONG Appellant and SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE 1st Respondent COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE 2nd Respondent and INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF Intervener JURISTS _________________________ Before: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Tang NPJ and Mr Justice Gleeson NPJ Date of Hearing 7 May 2019 Date of Judgment: 6 June 2019 - 2 - JUDGMENT The Court: A. Introduction 1. This appeal concerns equality under the law and involves an application of the legal principles identified and applied in this Court’s recent decision in QT v Director of Immigration.1 It arises in the context of a claim to entitlement to spousal medical and dental benefits under the Civil Service Regulations (“CSRs”) and to opt for joint assessment of salaries tax under the Inland Revenue Ordinance.2 As will be seen, the appellant claims he has been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. A.1 The parties 2. The appellant is a Hong Kong permanent resident of Chinese nationality. He commenced employment as an immigration officer with the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2003 and, as such, is subject to the CSRs. He is homosexual and, in 2005, met his partner, Mr Scott Adams. The couple began cohabiting in 2013 and, on 18 April 2014, they were married in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2010
    JORC Report 2010 The work of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) is set out in two separate reports. First, a report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” is published to provide an overall account of the JORC, identifying the different levels of court within its responsibility. Secondly, an annual report is published to report on the work of the JORC during the year. This JORC Report 2010 provides an account of the work of the JORC during 2010. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will only upload both Reports on our Website. Geoffrey Ma Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2010, the Chief Executive re-appointed three members of JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012. The membership in 2010 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang, GBM (Chairman) (up to 31 August 2010) The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (Chairman) (from 1 September 2010) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberto Alexandre Vieira RIBEIRO (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis TONG Po-sun (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) Barrister and solicitor Mr. Rimsky Yuen, SC (barrister) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Mr. Michael Lintern-Smith (solicitor) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Persons not connected with the practice of law Professor Lap-Chee TSUI (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Dr Rosanna WONG Yick-ming, DBE, JP (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) 2 Dr Edgar CHENG Wai-kin, GBS, JP (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) 3 Secretary of JORC 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Hkcfa 12 in the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong
    Press Summary (English) Press Summary (Chinese) FACV No. 14 of 2017 [2018] HKCFA 12 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 272 OF 2015) ____________________ BETWEEN (1) ASTRO NUSANTARA Applicants/ INTERNATIONAL B.V. (2) ASTRO NUSANTARA Claimants in the HOLDINGS B.V. Arbitration/ (3) ASTRO MULTIMEDIA Judgment Creditors CORPORATION N.V. (4) ASTRO MULTIMEDIA N.V. (Respondents) (5) ASTRO OVERSEAS LIMITED (formerly known as AAAN (Bermuda) Limited) (6) ASTRO ALL ASIA NETWORKS PLC (7) MEASAT BROADCAST NETWORK SYSTEMS SDN BHD (8) ALL ASIA MULTIMEDIA NETWORK FZ-LLC and (1) PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA (2) PT FIRST MEDIA TBK (Appellant) (formerly known as PT BROADBAND MULTIMEDIA TBK) (3) PT DIRECT VISION Defendants/Respondents in the Arbitration/ Judgment Debtors ____________________ Before: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Lord Reed NPJ Date of Hearing: 12 March 2018 Date of Judgment: 11 April 2018 ________________________ J U D G M E N T _________________________ Chief Justice Ma: 1. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 2. This appeal raises issues concerning the principles applicable where a party seeks leave to resist enforcement of a New York Convention arbitration award out of time. 3. The eight respondent companies, members of a Malaysian media group conveniently referred to as “Astro”, were the claimants in the arbitration. The 1st to 5th, 7th and 8th respondents are subsidiaries of the 6th respondent, a substantial company listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.
    [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]
  • Cacv 59/2010 in the High Court of the Hong Kong
    由此 A A CACV 59/2010 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2010 E E (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 31 OF 2009) F F G BETWEEN G CH Applicant H H And I DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Respondent I J J Before: Hon Hartmann and Fok JJA and To J in Court K K Date of Hearing: 14 September 2011 Date of Judgment: 14 September 2011 L L Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 26 September 2011 M M N R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T N O O Hon Hartmann JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court): P P 1. By notice of motion dated 27 June 2011, the applicant sought leave Q to appeal this Court’s judgment of 18 April 2011 to the Court of Final Appeal. Q The application was made pursuant to s. 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal R R Ordinance, Cap. 484, on the basis that questions of great general or public S S importance or otherwise questions that should be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision arise in the appeal. Having heard submissions, we T T dismissed the application. U U V V 由此 - 2 - A A 2. The applicant, CH, came to Hong Kong on 12 July 2008. He was B B in possession of a Cameroonian passport and was permitted to remain here as a C visitor for a period of 14 days, his last permitted day in Hong Kong being C 26 July 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • W V. Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong Court of Appeal
    A A CACV 266/2010 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2010 E E (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 120 OF 2009) F F BETWEEN G G W Applicant and H H REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES Respondent I I J J Before: Hon Tang VP, Hartmann and Fok JJA in Court Dates of Hearing: 12 & 13 October 2011 K K Date of Handing Down Judgment: 25 November 2011 L L J U D G M E N T M M N Hon Tang VP: N O O 1. I have had the advantage of reading Fok JA’s judgment in draft. I am in full agreement and have nothing to add. P P Q Hon Hartmann JA: Q R R 2. I agree with the judgment of Fok JA. S S T T U U V V A - 2 - A Hon Fok JA: B B C A. Introduction C D D 3. The appellant is a post-operative transsexual woman, who wishes to marry her male partner. The respondent has construed the relevant E E provisions of the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 179 (“the MO”) as not permitting F F such a marriage. The appellant challenges the respondent’s construction of those provisions. Alternatively, the appellant says that the provisions, if G G construed correctly by the respondent, are unconstitutional being in breach of H H various articles of the Basic Law (“BL”), the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“HKBOR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights I I (“ICCPR”).
    [Show full text]