Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hire car permit

  • 23 Sept 2020

    HKSAR v. YUONG HO CHEUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFA 29
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC1/2020

    The phrase "for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward" in s.52(3) RTO covers carriage undertaken as a business or commercial arrangement whereby payment is made by the passenger or on his behalf (to the driver or a third party); it does not require a direct contract between the individual driver and passenger; ride‑hailing drivers operating via a third‑party platform fall within s.52(3); mens rea for driving/use must be proved and on the facts was established; appeal dismissed.

  • 29 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. WONG TAK-MING

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2899
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA401/2018

    The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to drive for carriage of passengers for hire or reward; it does not require an express direct agreement with the passenger or actual payment; the provision targets predominantly commercial carriage arrangements; the applicants' proposed direct‑agreement requirement and constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable and certification was refused.

  • 29 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. LEE HING-LUNG GARY

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2899
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA390/2018

    The phrase 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' in s52(3)(a) is a requirement of the defendant's subjective purpose: the prosecution must prove the driver intended the carriage to be for hire or reward; no direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger is required; the provision targets carriage of a predominantly commercial character and is supported by legislative history and local authorities; the application for certification was dismissed because the contested alternative constructions and constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable.

  • 29 Nov 2019

    HKSAR v. WONG WAI-KEUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2899
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA387/2018

    Application for a certificate dismissed because the central statutory interpretation question (meaning of 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward') is not reasonably arguable: s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to obtain reward from carriage (expectation of payment) but does not require direct agreement or actual payment; the carriage targeted is predominantly commercial; challenges based on overbreadth under BL28 and freedom of occupation under BL33 were not reasonably arguable in these consolidated appeals.

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. YUONG HO-CHEUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA381/2018

    Section 52(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance requires proof of a subjective purpose by the driver that the driving was for the carriage of passengers 'for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose); there is no requirement of a direct carriage agreement between driver and passenger as an element of the offence (such an agreement is evidential only); s52(3) is not overbroad or unconstitutional on that construction; the magistrate's remedial reading and requirement that reward depend on distance were unnecessary; on the facts the Appellants were acting for commercial reward and convict…

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. LAU KIN-FUNG BOSCO

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA391/2018

    Section 52(3) RTO requires proof of a subjective purpose: the driver must have driven 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominately commercial purpose) but conviction does not require a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger or actual payment by the passenger; s52(3) as so construed is not overbroad or unconstitutional and is not necessary to subject it to a remedial reading; the magistrate's convictions were sustainable on the evidence (drivers responded to ride requests via Uber, fares were journey-dependent and drivers expected to receive reward),…

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. LEE KWOK-LEUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA396/2018

    Section 52(3) RTO requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose — the driving must be for the carriage of passengers with a predominantly commercial/business purpose such that the ride is 'for hire or reward'; a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger is not a legal precondition (it is evidential only); the provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional as so construed; on the facts the appellants satisfied the mens rea and convictions were upheld.

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. YIP KA-SHING

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA383/2018

    Section 52(3) RTO is properly construed to require proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose); no legal requirement of a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger nor a distance-based remedial gloss; s52(3) is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed; on the facts the drivers acted with the prohibited purpose and convictions are safe and upheld.

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. YIP WAI-MING

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA382/2018

    Section 52(3) of Cap 374 requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a predominantly commercial purpose); an inter se agreement between driver and passenger is evidential but not an essential legal element; the provision as properly construed is not overbroad or unconstitutional and applies to platform-mediated services like Uber; on the facts the appellants had the requisite purpose and convictions and fines were upheld.

  • 13 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. CHICK WAI-HO

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2280
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA415/2018

    Section 52(3) RTO requires proof of the defendant driver's subjective purpose to drive 'for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward' (a mens rea element); an express or implied agreement between driver and passenger is evidence but not an essential element; the provision is not overbroad or unconstitutional as properly construed and is capable of applying to platform-mediated services such as Uber; on the facts the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted with a predominantly commercial purpose and expected a reward derived from the carriage, so convictions a…