早知結果,何必當初呢?
望吓旁邊兩次投票結果就知,會員從未就此事支持公會。 雖本Blog可能只代表小眾意見,但唔代完全冇意思。
公會給會員的信,現原文轉載。
*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
20 September 2007
Dear Mr. Char,
Decision on the recent Judicial Review
The Council wishes to inform members that it has decided not to appeal against the Judgement of the Court of First Instance in the Judicial review brought against the Institute by the Legislative Councillor (Accountancy).
The Council has taken into account many factors in coming to this decision. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read the attached letter, which explains in full the Institute’s decision (click here).
The Council has decided that with the unprecedented challenges facing the profession, the resources of the Institute should not be directed towards litigation.
My personal thank you to those members who wrote to us to express their views. Please continue to share your views on these important issues.
Yours sincerely,
Winnie C.W. Cheung
Chief Executive & Registrar
10 則留言:
第一次投票,63%支持會計界代表譚香文議員,最後譚香文勝訴!
第二次投票,89%反對公會上訴,公會最後決定不就司法覆核敗訴提出上訴!
都可算眾望所歸!
Cost of the JR
25. There has been a great deal of publicity about the Institute appointing a UK counsel to represent it and thereby incurring unnecessary additional cost. The Council would like to make clear to members that Ms. Tam’s application raised points of constitutional law which had not previously been considered in Hong Kong and the level of experience of the local bar in administrative and public law was such that the appointment of the UK counsel to conduct the case was desirable. The appointment of UK counsel requires approval by the Bar Association and the Court, and their approval was granted.
26. Litigation is costly but, when proceedings are commenced against the Institute, the Council has little option to defend itself and to employ appropriate counsel. The Council did not choose to commence litigation against Ms. Tam; that decision was Ms. Tam’s.
完全冇交代駛咗幾多錢之餘,還試途將責任"The Council did not choose to commence litigation against Ms. Tam"推比譚小姐"that decision was Ms. Tam’s"!
Council’s decision on Appeal
27. As indicated, the Council has been advised that it has strong grounds of appeal. The Council has considered carefully whether to lodge an appeal, taking into account the legal and financial implications and members’ expressed concerns. The Council is obviously concerned at the fact that the judgement appears to open the door to members being "bombarded" with material which is unrelated to professional matters and/or potentially controversial. However, having balanced all the factors, the Council has nevertheless decided not to lodge an appeal. It was a difficult decision but one made with the overriding desire to bring an end to litigation and the effect this has had on members, the Institute and the profession.
28. The Council hopes that Ms. Tam and future Legco representatives will give due consideration to the issues raised above when deciding what material they choose to disseminate.
講到自己有好強的上訴機會,如果唔係馬沙在報紙鬧完一次又一次及有熱心會員發起"一人一信大行動",讓公會怕會員call EGM 反對,肯定公會會上訴。
公會會長方中續表示：「理事會從多個角度考慮是否對裁決提出上訴，並認為原來的決定合情合理兼合法。根據法律顧問的意見我們有很強的理據進行上訴。理事會最後決定不作上訴是不希望繼續糾纏於訴訟之中。」
死唔認錯.....
成篇野都係"死雞撐飯蓋"
可憐我地,邊個會還番果500萬俾我地?
係唔係從Winnie Cheung份人工同埋花紅裡面扣?佢份花紅係"base on performance"架噃....
問題係未發生呢件事,Winnie the Pooh都唔值咁高人工。
大家應該睇下同樂會封信全文:多番強調同樂會行事有理有據、更有足夠道理再上訴,只係會員離心令爭取公義功虧一簣...
真係感人熱淚呀!
方會長說「公道自在人心」, 講得真好!
大家會員齊來學習這句騎牆式語法, 將來跑江湖, 必定有用!
1. A copy of Winnie Cheung's letter should be passed to the Court for reference .
2. If HKICPA has a very strong case as it claimed , it must appeal in order to pass the legal cost to Mandy Tam . If not , are Council Members bear the $5 million ? Of course , if again loss in appeal , the Council Members should pay all the cost .
是否可再進一步提出改組理事會及將當初有關會議記錄公開?
發佈留言