Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed leave to seek judicial review of a TCAB decision, finding no reasonably arguable error of law, unfairness, or irrationality.
Accepting PW1's credible technical and factual evidence and the totality of admitted facts, the court concluded the appellant, unauthorised, used the SendPush interface to send five false push notifications which were stored on TVB's managed server and thereby added data and caused the computer system to operate otherwise than as its owner intended; appellant had no honest belief of authorization and no lawful excuse, proof beyond reasonable doubt established, appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court refused an extension of time and dismissed leave to seek judicial review, finding the application was very late and disclosed no arguable error in the Board’s decision.
On a rehearing the High Court accepted PW1’s credible, consistent evidence corroborated by sketches and photographs and rejected the appellant’s account as implausible; the evidence did not establish dangerous driving (running a red light) beyond reasonable doubt but did establish that the appellant failed to exercise the requisite care when turning and therefore was rightly convicted of careless driving; the appeal is dismissed and the original fine upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court found an oral joint venture existed for Luen Shing’s construction projects, dismissed the company’s claims, and ordered an account, interest and costs.
On the facts the applicant remained employed and was within his normal working hours on employer's premises when assaulted; respondent produced no contrary evidence and did not require him to leave; therefore, under s.5(4)(a) the injury is to be treated as arising out of and in the course of employment and respondent is liable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.
Source excerpt
Claim dismissed because no 'accident' as defined under s5(1) was proved; occupational disease was not pleaded and the claimant's diagnosed condition is not a disease listed in Schedule 2; expert medical evidence found the shoulder pathology unrelated to the short period of data‑entry work; claimant found dishonest and her evidence rejected — therefore no legal liability under the Ordinance.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a question of public importance or any real prospects of success.
The Court refused leave because the defendant merely repeated earlier rejected arguments without identifying any material error in the assessing officer's findings, failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and failed to demonstrate procedural unfairness; accordingly the assessment and interim costs order were upheld and leave was refused.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities the court found the applicant was an employee: respondent exercised control over work allocation and hours, supplied materials and tools, paid the applicant by daily wage evidenced by receipts and WhatsApp records, and acted to process the Form 2; s5(4) applied to treat the accident as in the course of employment; applicant's monthly earnings were calculated from an accepted daily wage of HK$1,600 and average working days to HK$38,400; applying statutory formulas produced awards under s9 (HK$17,088), s10 (HK$130,048) and s10A (HK$1,260) totaling HK$148,396, whi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
