1. This appeal was concerned with an aspect of the regulation of fish farms (known as fish culture zones) in Hong Kong concerning the validity of a licence to engage in fish culture after its expiry date. Specifically, when a licence has been cancelled and an appeal against that cancellation is instituted, does the validity of the licence automatically continue until the determination of the appeal even if that date is beyond the expiry date? FACTS 2. A licence from the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) issued under the Marine Fish Culture Ordinance (“MFCO”) is required to operate a raft in a fish culture zone in Hong Kong. Licences are valid for 12 months and, for renewal, application must be made to the AFCD at least 1 month before the expiry date of the licence, i.e. by the 11th month of the term of the licence. 3. The Respondent company, Special View Limited (“SVL”) had a licence to operate a raft in Tiu Cham Wan, which was valid for a year from 17 December 2014. The Director of the AFCD (the “Director”) considered that SVL was in breach of relevant regulations and licence conditions and therefore gave notice on 24 November 2015 that he had made a decision to cancel its licence under section 9(1) of the MFCO with immediate effect. By that time, there was less than one month to run on the licence before its expiry date but no application to renew it had been made by SVL. SVL appealed to the Administrative Appeals Board against the cancellation of its licence under section 16(1)(c) of the MFCO. That appeal was instituted within the statutory appeal period of 28 days of the cancellation decision but was after the expiry date of the licence. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 4. In the meantime, SVL continued to allow its raft to remain in the fish farm and so it was therefore charged under section 13(2) of the MFCO at the Kwun Tong Magistracy with the offence of causing or permitting a raft to remain in a fish culture zone without a licence. At trial, SVL argued that, by virtue of section 16(2)(a) of the MFCO, which provided that a cancellation, if appealed, did not become effective until the determination of the appeal, its licence should be deemed to have been in force during the period of the charge by reason of SVL’s appeal. The magistrate rejected that defence, convicted SVL and imposed a fine of $2,500. 5. SVL appealed to the Court of First Instance, and the Deputy Judge allowed its appeal on this ground. He essentially held that the validity of the licence was frozen at the point in time when the cancellation notice was served, since SVL had appealed against the cancellation of its licence, and so there was no need for SVL to apply for renewal of the licence pending the determination of the appeal. 6. The prosecution brought a further appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of First Instance. ISSUES 7. The question before the Court was one of interpretation of section 16 of the MFCO, which gives a statutory right of appeal against certain decisions of the Director. 8. The language of section 16(2)(a) of MFCO did not support SVL’s defence. That sub-section provides that a decision to cancel the licence “shall not become effective” pending an appeal against it. It says nothing about what effect the passage of time has on the licence in the meantime. This can be contrasted with the language found in sections 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(c), which spells out clearly that the licence will “continue in force” when appeals were made against refusals to renew or approve transfers of the licence. This is further supported by the fact that section 16(3) only provides for liability for the payment of a fee for a licence beyond its expiry date when appeals are made under sections 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(c) but not section 16(2)(a). 9. Construing the language of section 16(2)(a) in the light of its context and purpose therefore, the Court held that its effect was as follows: (1) Where an appeal is timeously lodged against a decision to cancel a licence under the MFCO and within the validity of the licence, the cancellation does not become effective pending the determination of the appeal notwithstanding that the cancellation may on its face state that it takes immediate effect. Nevertheless, the expiry date and other terms of the licence remain applicable and, if no application to renew the licence is made, the licence will expire on the expiry date when that date arrives. (2) If a cancellation is made during the currency of a licence but an appeal is only lodged against the cancellation decision after the expiry date of licence, the licence will have run its original course and expired before the lodging of the appeal. In those circumstances, the lodging of the appeal (within the 28-day time limit) will have the effect of nullifying the cancellation. However, as indicated in sub-paragraph (1) above, the licence will have continued to run and will have expired on its expiry date. If the licensee continued to operate a fish farm after the cancellation, there would be no offence until the expiry date of the licence. Thereafter, however, the continued operation of a fish farm would be an offence since there would no longer be a valid licence in place. (3) There were contrasting consequences of an appeal under section 16(2)(b) or (c). Where, for example, an application for renewal is refused under section 8(6) and that refusal is appealed, the effect of section 16(2)(b) is that the licence will be deemed to continue in force according to its terms and conditions until the determination of the appeal. This applies even if the licence has expired as at the date of the institution of the appeal. In that event, the appeal will relate back to the expiry date of the licence and the licence is deemed to continue in force thereafter. The continuation of the licence is on its original terms so a breach of the licence conditions thereafter will render it liable to enforcement action by the Director (including cancellation, which may in turn give rise to the consequences of section 16(2)(a)). 10. The Court of First Instance’s view that the validity of SVL’s licence was “frozen” pending the appeal against its cancellation was incorrect. SVL failed to apply to renew its licence within time and had operated its fish farm without a valid licence. It was therefore properly convicted by the magistrate of the offence charged. DISPOSITION 11. Accordingly, the appeal was unanimously allowed. SVL’s conviction and the fine imposed by the magistrate were reinstated.