HKSAR v. Cnt Security Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 887/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 June 2007.
1. When judgment was handed down in this matter on 31 May 2007, the parties were invited to make written submissions to the court as to the appropriate amounts to be stipulated in the orders of compensation in respect of contributions to be made by the appellant company to the trustees of Mr Li’s Mandatory Provident fund, namely Bank Consortium Trust Limited. The magistrate had made orders that the appellant company pay the sum of $421.75 in respect of each of the four respective summonses conc
|
HCMA887/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM KTS 13906 – 13911 OF 2005) --------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Hon Lunn J in Court Date of Hearing : 22 June 2007 Date of Judgment : 22 June 2007 -------------------------- J U D G M E N T -------------------------- 1.When judgment was handed down in this matter on 31 May 2007, the parties were invited to make written submissions to the court as to the appropriate amounts to be stipulated in the orders of compensation in respect of contributions to be made by the appellant company to the trustees of Mr Li’s Mandatory Provident fund, namely Bank Consortium Trust Limited. The magistrate had made orders that the appellant company pay the sum of $421.75 in respect of each of the four respective summonses concerning Mr Li. The parties are agreed and they have confirmed that in court today that in light of the judgment of this court, the sum payable by the appellant company to Bank Consortium Trust Limited in respect of each of the summonses is $275. I make an order against the appellant company in favour of Bank Consortium Trust Limited for the benefit of Mr Li for that amount on each of these four summonses. If the appellant company has already made a greater payment to Bank Consortium Trust Limited in accordance with the order of the magistrate, the amount in excess obviously is to be returned to the appellant company. Corrigenda 2.Mr Liu has drawn the attention of the court to some typographical errors in the judgment and Mr McCoy has no objection to the corrections that are sought being made. References in the judgment at paragraph 6 to Mr Ho as PW2 and Mr Li as PW3 are errors for PW1 and PW2 respectively. References to Mr Ho at paragraph 40, i.e. M, N and P-R are made in error and should be references, as is apparent from line K of that paragraph to Mr Li.
Mr Liu Yuen Ming, SGC of Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Gerard McCoy, SC, instructed by Messrs Leung, Chan & Pang, for the Appellant |
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 887/2006