7 Jan 2026
Leave to appeal was granted because the Applicant demonstrated an arguable question of law: the Adjudicator may have failed to consider whether the penalties and costs awarded were the natural and direct result of the Claimant's conversion and whether D1 mitigated his loss, which raises a proper question of law for the Court of Appeal to decide.
11 Sept 2024
Because the appellant admitted receipt of the tickets, the statute mandates imposition of the fixed penalty and an additional penalty equal to the fixed penalty; the only judicial discretion concerns court costs within the statutory range, and the imposed HK$440 is within that range, so there is no basis to interfere with the magistrate's orders; appeal dismissed.
14 May 2024
Evidence established the appellant’s car was parked unattended in the leftmost lane on yellow lines and, by forcing approaching vehicles to divert into the second lane, it was reasonably likely to cause unnecessary obstruction; short duration, alleged private status of the bay and de minimis arguments were insufficient to negate that finding, so conviction and fixed penalty were upheld.
20 Jun 2023
Notice sent by ordinary post that was not returned was presumed served; the appellant failed to prove non‑receipt was not due to his own negligence and failed to prosecute the appeal or attend the hearing; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the magistrate's order is upheld.
7 Jul 2022
Even if the issuing officer's handwriting was untidy and there may have been postal delay, the appellant failed to prove non‑receipt was not due to his own negligence; the ticket was affixed to the vehicle and the addresses used by police and court matched, so the magistrate correctly ordered payment; appeal dismissed.
3 Jun 2014
On the proven facts (vehicle stationary in the left lane at the white line, traffic lights changed twice, driver inattentive, other vehicles impeded or deprived of choice of lane during business hours in Central) the vehicle's presence was likely to cause an unnecessary obstruction and not de minimis, so conviction under s4 is safe; however the additional penalty under s20(3) was quashed because the Magistrate did not in fact make a finding that the defence was frivolous or vexatious as required for mandatory imposition of the additional penalty.
21 Jan 2014
Sending the notice to the appellant's address as recorded with the Transport Department fulfilled the legal requirement of service; non‑receipt resulted from the appellant's own failure to provide the correct address and therefore did not justify overturning the order or granting review, so the magistrate's refusal to reopen was correctly upheld.
18 Oct 2012
Given the magistrate's adverse credibility findings, the evidence that a related notice had been received at the same address within weeks, and the statutory presumption of service under IGC Ordinance s8, the only reasonable inference was that the notice to pay was delivered; the magistrate did not err in dismissing the review and the appeal fails.
21 Dec 2011
On the balance of probabilities the appellant was negligent in failing to notify the Transport Department of his change of address; therefore the Notice posted to the registered address is treated as having come to his notice and the order under s.3A(1) was correctly not rescinded; appeal dismissed.
3 Mar 2004
The magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, including expert testimony and testing of the laser gun, and reasonably found the device was operating accurately and the expert unbiased; the appellant failed to show the magistrate erred in fact or law; therefore the conviction stands and the fine of $1,200 (fixed penalty plus additional penalty) is appropriate under s.9(1) and is upheld.