HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. TOP DOG (HK) LTD.

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
16553-EN-1995-12-19

THE QUEEN v. TOP DOG (HK) LTD.

HTML content

HCMA001051/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1051 OF 1995

--------------------

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
TOP DOG (HK) LTD.Appellant

--------------------

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 13 December 1995

Date of handing down judgment : 19 December 1995

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

 

1. This was an appeal against a fine of $8,400 which had been imposed for operating a food factory without a licence. The fine had been one of $1,500 plus a daily fine of $100 for 69 days during which the factory was operated.

2. The appellant also has an establishment in Lan Kwai Fong which apparently operates to the satisfaction of the Urban Services Department. Mr Scott Anderson, who appeared before me on the appeal on behalf of the Appellant, produced some documents which indicated that at least part of the blame for the continued operation of the premises without a licence lay at the feet of his surveyor. I therefore felt, in the circumstances, I could reduce the fine which I did by halving the daily fine of $100 to $50. The total fine was one now $4,950, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

Representation:

Mr McMeans, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr Scott Anderson representing the Appellant, Top Dog (HK) Ltd.

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court