HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

THE QUEEN v. TOP DOG (HONG KONG) LIMITED

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
16604-EN-1996-03-05

THE QUEEN v. TOP DOG (HONG KONG) LIMITED

HTML content

HCMA000137/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 137 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
TOP DOG (HONG KONG) LIMITEDAppellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 29 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 5 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a total fine of $9,000 imposed for operating a food factory without a licence. The fine was one of $2,500 plus a fine of $100 per day for 65 days. This was the second time I had dealt with this Appellant for exactly the same matter. This case simply dealt with another summons taken out subsequently to the last one with which I dealt, and had the original summons included all the days, covered by this summons, during which the Appellant ran the food factory without a licence, then the fine would have been substantially reduced. I therefore allowed the appeal to the extent that I reduced the principal fine to one of $1,000 and the daily fine to $50, making a total of $4,250. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Representation:

Mr F Veltro, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant Top Dog (Hong Kong) Limited in person

- 2 -

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