Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party insurance

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2023

香港特別行政區訴楊偉傑

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/2023

Although the statute mandates disqualification on conviction for use of a vehicle without third‑party insurance, the appellate court may reduce the period where factual mitigating circumstances amount to special reasons; on these facts — a low‑powered electric scooter used on a cycle track and the appellant's disability and employment consequences — the mandatory 12‑month disqualification was excessive and was reduced to 6 months.
8 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區訴楊松剛

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA584/2018

Because the policy clause required the driver to "hold a licence or has held and is not disqualified", an expired licence falls within "has held and is not disqualified" as established by Edwards v Griffiths and applied in Cheung Kwong Siu v R; therefore the appellant was within the policy cover and the conviction for using the vehicle without third‑party insurance could not be sustained.
2 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI MAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 392
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC262/2018

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant offered no substantial explanation for the delay and the proposed grounds lacked merit; the sentencing starting point and 4 year disqualification were within principled range for a worst‑category dangerous driving case and therefore sentence and disqualification were upheld; a loss of time order of 8 weeks was appropriate.
28 Feb 2019

香港特別行政區訴鄧燊貴

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA497/2018

The path satisfied the statutory definitions of "road/roads" and "private road" in the Road Traffic Ordinance because it was a passage that the public could access; accordingly the Road Traffic Ordinance and Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Ordinance applied and the appellant's convictions for not wearing a helmet, driving an unlicensed vehicle and driving without third‑party insurance were upheld.
29 Sept 2015

HUSSAIN BASHARAT v. 曾慶裕 AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUSSAIN BASHARAT v. 曾慶裕 AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI508/2012

Because the 2nd defendant provided misleading information (notably the 18 May 2012 letter denying a rental agreement) and only produced the rental agreement on 4 January 2013, the court found the 2nd defendant brought about the litigation and must pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 4 January 2013; after that date the plaintiff elected to continue against the 2nd defendant and therefore bears the subsequent costs; there was no basis for enhanced interest and the costs of the variation application are, on nisi basis, no order as to costs between the parties.
5 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. JABROAT ANOSH

Citation

HKSAR v. JABROAT ANOSH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA573/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate correctly applied sentencing principles and precedents, the appellant's humanitarian claim was unsupported and inconsistent with the evidence, and there was no basis to disturb the aggregate sentence of 18 months imposed by the magistrate.
8 Oct 2012

HKSAR v. JOCKEY CLUB KAU SAI CHAU PUBLIC GOLF COURSE LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. JOCKEY CLUB KAU SAI CHAU PUBLIC GOLF COURSE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA719/2011

The court held that the unnamed road was either a 'road' within the meaning of MVI(TPR)O because it was accessible to the public or at least 'a class of the public' (golfers and driving-range users), and alternatively it was a 'private road' to which MVI(TPR)O applies; the light utility vehicle was a 'motor vehicle' under the Burns v Currell test because its habitual use on the island roads made road use a contemplated general use; therefore the appellant's conviction for using a motor vehicle without third party insurance was upheld.
9 Aug 2007

HKSAR v. LAM SHING YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM SHING YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA559/2007

The magistrate was entitled to disbelieve PW1 on credibility and to draw reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence; on the whole evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was used to carry passengers for hire and that the insurance was invalid, and the appellant's silence did not render the convictions unsafe.
25 Aug 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUK HON

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUK HON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA623/2005

The magistrate lawfully concluded the breach of the disqualification order was flagrant and there were no exceptional or mitigating factors to justify a non-custodial sentence; therefore the custodial sentences were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. KWAN CHUNG WA

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN CHUNG WA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA471/2005

Immediate custody for driving whilst disqualified and without third party insurance was appropriate on these facts, but the magistrate's nine‑month starting point for Charge 1 was excessive; a three‑month starting point reduced to two months on a guilty plea is appropriate and the disqualification imposed under s.12(2)(b) was beyond the court's power and is quashed.