HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD

HCMA 756/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 756 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM FLS 1080 OF 2013)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  It may turn out to be the case, if all the relevant facts were known, that the knowledge, acts and omissions of the crane operator are properly to be attributed to the appellant company which own the crane so that his knowledge, acts and omissions can, as the Magistrate thought, provide basis on which to deprive the appellant company of its costs despite its acquittal. After all, he was not only an employee of the appellant company but also a director of it and the holder of 25% of the shares in it.

2.  Nevertheless, not enough is known of the facts relevant to the arrangements within the company, or the way in which it operated, to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the question of attribution. It has, after all, to be borne in mind that it was for the prosecution to make out a satisfactory basis on which to deprive an acquitted defendant of the costs which normally follows an acquittal.

3.  In my view, the evidence was not sufficiently clear for the purposes of finding such a basis. The appellant company's appeal against the refusal to award it its costs is allowed.

4.  I order that costs, both here and below, be awarded to the appellant company to be taxed if not agreed.