HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2007

CNT SECURITY CO LTD v. HKSAR

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
57954-EN-2007-07-30

CNT SECURITY CO LTD v. HKSAR

HTML content

FAMC No. 35 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 35 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 887 OF 2006)

_____________________

Between:

 CNT SECURITY COMPANY LIMITEDApplicant
 - and - 
 HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONRespondent

_____________________

 

Appeal Committee :Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Date of Hearing :30 July 2007
Date of Determination :30 July 2007

 

_________________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

_________________________________

 

Chief Justice Li:

1.  The first point raised in this application is the proper interpretation of the phrase “other than a housing allowance or other housing benefit” in the definition of “relevant income” in s. 2(1) of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance, Cap. 485.  The judge’s conclusion on this question is plainly right.  In our view, the contrary is not arguable.

2.  The applicant further relies on reasonable excuse under s. 43B(1) of the Ordinance.  But wherever the burden in relation to reasonable excuse lies, there is no viable basis for it.  Therefore, the question of the burden of proof in relation to reasonable excuse does not arise.

3.  Accordingly, the application for leave is refused.

 

 

(Andrew Li)
Chief Justice
(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

 

Mr Gerard McCoy SC (instructed by Messrs Leung, Chan & Pang) for the applicant

Mr Kevin P Zervos SC (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent