TNAG-2219-FCO40-3187-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 38

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

IS-MAT-1991 78:18

DIRECTOR OF ADM.

852 877 0802

P.27

25

government required, an officer could so authorised by the

Governor, under the Carltona principle. to make an

appointment covered by article XIV in the Governor's name

and on his cenɑlf.

xing Jerore us

(or wi

فی

There can De no doult that power given to a

particular authority by a constitutional instrument of the

a statute) 1s, pria facle, intended

to ce exercised only by the authority named. nere express

language permitting the delegation

found,

court 211

De slow to infer ༥

10 question is not to de

power to elegate

particularly where express authority 15 given 10 the same

instrument to delegate another power). no..ever, the duty of

to extract the true meaning of a particular

*.ne court.

Covision fre

tne lanyudue usea, and anything that S

necessarily implied from the words used, having reyard to

anc construing the instrument as a wnoie, must

were part of the provision.

the context,

siven effect

neav

0%

as

The respondents to this appeai

this appeal justifiably rely

On the crfect of the amendment hace to Article XII

as result of the wo Po senų case particularly in the

llynt of the observations of Loru Bridge givin the judgment

Somrattee in a recent case from Hong Kong,

Cominis icher of inlerd Revenue v. Hang Seng Bank Ltu. (1990)

3 LA 112V. fnere,

et the

Covacial

an evendirent,

eeminu“ provision

nau been Insertea into the relevant statute. Loru eridge,

at

1130 pad this

Say!

"¿Counsel was asked whetner the aenoment] cemonstrateu that, without this veeminy provision, section 14 could not be construed in such a way as to subject the interest to profits tax and thus refuted the contention that the Jank's profit now in question was so suoject. To this counsel responded that the legislature cannot by an amendment to existing legislation, which proceeds upon a mistaken belief as to the effect of a provision in the original enactment, alter the meaning of that provision. This is no doust perfectly correct if the meaning of the original provision is

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.