(Hi) in the opinion of the Commissioner, the act or practice done or ensased in, as the case may be, may prejudice the enforcement of . any risht, or the exercise of anv privilese, acquired or accrued in HonsKons by the complainant (or, if the complainant is a relevant person, the individual in respect of whom the complainant is such a person);[…] ” (emphasis added) E5. Authorities on Interpretation of Statues and on the Ordinance 48. The tools and principles of interpretation of statutes are not disputed in the present appeal which are set out in the following authorities. In HKSAR v Cheuns Kwun Yin (2009) 12 HKCFAR 568，the Court of Final Appeal laid down the following approach for statutory interpretation (see pages 574-575): " 11. In interpreting a statute, the court's task is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as expressed in the lansuase of the statute. This is of course an objective exercise. The court is not engaged in an exercise of ascertaining the legislative intent on its own. As Lord Reid pointed out in Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof - Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 at P 613G. . []We often say that we are looking for the intention of ' Parliament, but that is not quite accurate. We are seeking the ， meaning of the words which Parliament used.[ ] 40