Lee To Nei v. HKSAR
Read the full judgment text of FAMC 99/2010 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 10 June 2011.
1. Is the statutory defence provided by s.26(4) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Cap.362, to be made out by discharging a persuasive burden or is the burden merely evidential?
Cited by 2 cases
|
FAMC Nos 99 of 2010 and 9 of 2011 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS99 OF 2010 AND 9 OF 2011 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NOS 403 AND 500 OF 2010) ____________________ FAMC No.99 of 2010 Between:
------------- FAMC No.9 of 2011 Between:
____________________
_________________________ D E T E R M I N A T I O N _________________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 1.Is the statutory defence provided by s.26(4) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Cap.362, to be made out by discharging a persuasive burden or is the burden merely evidential? 2.The point raised by that question is an arguable point of law of great and general importance, and it is involved in each of these cases. We grant all of these applicants leave to appeal to the Court of Final for them to pursue that point. But we do not grant leave under the “substantial and grave injustice” limb of s.32(2) of the Court’s statute. Leave is granted only under the “point of law” limb of that subsection.
Mr Richard Wong (instructed by Messrs Amy Lam and Co.) for the applicant in FAMC 99 of 2010 Mr Andrew Bruce SC and Mr Felix Hoe (instructed by Messrs Anthony Kwan and Co.) for the applicants in FAMC 9 of 2011 Mr Wesley W C Wong and Mr Beney Wong (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under FAMC 99/2010