Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hawker licence

  • 26 Jun 2020

    PROSPEROUS WORLD LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAI FUNG SHAN

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 453
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP3931/2019

    The O113 summary procedure was inappropriate because the Structure is on government land raising title and adverse possession questions, there are disputed factual issues (including gap width and ownership of the Structure) that require full trial findings, and the master cannot grant the injunctive relief necessary to remove the structure; accordingly the summary application was dismissed and the matter ordered to continue as if begun by writ.

  • 28 Oct 2016

    TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV178/2015

    The appeal is dismissed because the 1st defendant failed to prove the Chus had the requisite intention to possess the disputed area as owners; their occupation was pursuant to fixed‑pitch hawker licences which, given their terms and regulatory control, made the occupation equivocal and inconsistent with animus possidendi; the alternative argument of Government adverse possession was unpleaded, fact‑dependent and could not be pursued on appeal without evidence from the Government.

  • 13 Nov 2003

    TOHO LTD v. NG SIK YU

    Citation
    TOHO LTD v. NG SIK YU
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3463/2003

    The court found as a fact the tenancy did not include the original wall stall (which was on government land) and that the defendant, authorized by the government to occupy the adjacent pavement, erected a detached stall 50 mm from the external wall; therefore the defendant surrendered vacant possession of the demised premises, was not in breach of the tenancy by demolishing the original wall stall, and plaintiff's claims (including for injunction) fail.

  • 16 Jun 2003

    TANG YUK CHUN v. LAW SUI MAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TANG YUK CHUN v. LAW SUI MAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ13517/2001

    The hawker licence was a statutory instrument and did not create a contract between the Director and the licencee; accordingly the misrepresentation claim under s.3 failed for lack of a contract, and the Director owed no actionable duty of care in respect of the 1st Defendant's trespassous acts which were not reasonably foreseeable and were disclaimed by the licence (Condition 13); therefore the 1st Defendant's summons for directions seeking contribution/indemnity from the Director was dismissed.

  • 8 Oct 1997

    CHUNG MAN YAU AND ANOTHER v. SIHON CO LTD

    Citation
    CHUNG MAN YAU AND ANOTHER v. SIHON CO LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV199/1996

    Appeal allowed: appellant entitled to recover loss of earnings for the period between the accident and the date he obtained a hawker's licence. The court held that unlicensed hawking in this case did not bar recovery because the illegality was regulatory, there was no causal link between the illegality and the defendant's negligence, and public policy considerations did not forbid compensation; future loss was assessed at HK$3,000 per month with multiplier 12 (HK$432,000) and past awards for pain and suffering (HK$470,000) were upheld.