Read the full judgment text of DCMP 000896/1990 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 25 March 1993 before Cheung DJ.
Constitutional and administrative law – Bills of Rights Articles 8, 10 and 22 – Inland Revenue Ordinance ss.75(3), (4) and 77 – profit tax recovery from estate of deceased sole proprietor – ex parte 'Stop Order' direction to prevent taxpayer from leaving Hong Kong. Whether ss.75(3) and (4) Inland Revenue Ordinance are inconsistent with Articles 10 and 22 of the Bill of Rights – tax assessment an administrative act not involving determination of private rights – Board of Review and appeal routes to High Court and Court of Appeal satisfy fair hearing requirement under Article 10 – no evidence of discriminatory application of s.75(3) or (4) under Article 22. Whether District Judge issuing s.77 Direction acts in judicial or administrative capacity – judicial act because direction affects right to leave Hong Kong. Whether s.77 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance is inconsistent with Article 10 of the Bill of Rights – ex parte application with no oral hearing, no opportunity to be heard, no time limit and no statutory right of discharge – judicial review or appeal to Court of Appeal insufficient as they do not go into merits – restriction on freedom of movement engages Article 10. Defence struck out and judgment entered for the Commissioner in the sum of $229,845.00; s.77 Direction issued by H.H. Judge Cameron discharged; costs to be heard.
Legal issues: Constitutionality of s.75(3) and s.75(4) Inland Revenue Ordinance under Article 10 Bill of Rights · Constitutionality of s.75(3) and s.75(4) Inland Revenue Ordinance under Article 22 Bill of Rights · Whether District Judge acts in a judicial or administrative capacity when issuing a s.77 Direction · Constitutionality of s.77 Inland Revenue Ordinance under Article 10 Bill of Rights
Outcome: Defence struck out and judgment entered for the Commissioner in the sum of $229,845.00; s.77 Direction discharged