HKSAR v. So Hoi Chuen
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 398/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 November 2006.
1. Having heard counsel on both sides, it is my view that the phase “nexus of common interest” is not any term of art nor any legal phrase or legal concept which requires a legal interpretation. In relation to the point of what amounts to “acceptance” and when a court should or could draw an irresistible inference, my view is this is a matter of fact and not one of law.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMA398/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 5575 OF 2005) --------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Hon Nguyen J in Court Date of Hearing : 16 November 2006 Date of Judgment : 16 November 2006 ------------------------ J U D G M E N T ------------------------ 1.Having heard counsel on both sides, it is my view that the phase “nexus of common interest” is not any term of art nor any legal phrase or legal concept which requires a legal interpretation. In relation to the point of what amounts to “acceptance” and when a court should or could draw an irresistible inference, my view is this is a matter of fact and not one of law. 2.I therefore decline to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in my judgment delivered on 10 October 2006.
Mr Jonathan Man, SGC of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr W.K. Chu, instructed by Messrs Wong & Partners, for the 1st Appellant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 398/2006