Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Koo Ming Kown And Another

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date21 August 2013
Year2013
Judgement NumberHCAL112/2013
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCAL112/2013 RE KOO MING KOWN AND ANOTHER

HCAL112/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 112 OF 2013

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

IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review by the Applicants pursuant to Order 53, rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A)

and

IN THE MATTER OF the decisions by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to issue Notices of Assessment and Demand for Additional Tax under s.82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112)

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

KOO MING KOWN 1st Applicant
TADAO MURAKAMI 2nd Applicant

--------------------------
Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 21 August 2013
Date of Decision: 21 August 2013

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1. I believe that the legal position has been encapsulated with admirable clarity in Conray International Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2012] 4 HKLRD 792 at paragraph 26.

2. I am not satisfied that this is an exceptional case where the court’s jurisdiction in judicial review should be invoked. This is all the more so when there is on foot an appeal to the Board of Review. A Notice of Appeal was issued in those proceedings on 24 May 2013.

3. I am unable to agree with the argument that the jurisdiction of the Board of Review does not cover the legal challenges which underpin the intended judicial review application. I believe that the terms of the relevant statutory provisions indeed allow the applicants to ventilate the legal challenges in question before the Board of Review.

4. Further, I am not convinced by the argument that it is desirable in terms of economy of resources that the Board of Review proceedings should be stayed whilst the legal challenges are ventilated in a judicial review. One of the lessons derived from experience is that such projected saving often turns out to be unwarranted. On the other hand, the projected saving must be balanced against the delay to the Board of Review proceedings.

5. I should mention that I would, in any case, decline to grant leave in respect of Ground 3 of the Grounds of Review. The materials before me suggest that the Commissioner had considered the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT