Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hire car permit offences

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN PAK-KAY ANDREW

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA385/2018

The offence under s52(3)(a) is proved by establishing the driver's subjective purpose to provide carriage of passengers from which he expected reward derived from the carriage; no requirement for an actual payment or a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger; the provision is directed at predominantly commercial carriage (pak pai); the constitutional challenges were not reasonably arguable and the application for a certificate was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHUNG TZE-CHUN IVAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA397/2018

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the key legal questions were not reasonably arguable: the court held s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver’s subjective purpose to carry passengers for hire or reward (commercial character), does not require actual payment nor a narrowly defined direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger, and the constitutional challenges under Basic Law Articles 28 and 33 were not engaged or were not reasonably arguable on the facts and binding authority.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LAM YAN-MING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA386/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) RTO targets the driver's subjective purpose to drive for the carriage of passengers with an expectation of reward derived from that carriage; it does not require a direct contractual agreement between driver and passenger or actual payment; the statutory phrase should be read as targeting predominantly commercial carriage; the applicants' statutory and constitutional points were not reasonably arguable and certification was refused.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. CHICK WAI-HO

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA415/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) targets drivers whose subjective purpose in driving is to obtain reward derived from carriage of passengers (not necessarily via a direct agreement or actual payment) and that the Applicants' novel requirement of a direct contractual agreement with the passenger is unsupported by authority; constitutional challenges on overbreadth and Article 33 were not reasonably arguable on the facts and authorities, therefore the application for a certificate was dismissed.
29 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LI SUI-LEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA395/2018

The court held that s52(3)(a) focuses on the driver's subjective purpose to provide carriage from which the driver expects reward; no direct agreement or actual payment is necessary, and the provision targets predominantly commercial carriage; the applicants' proposed requirement of a direct agreement was not supported by authorities and the constitutional challenges (overbreadth and Basic Law Articles 28 and 33) were not reasonably arguable, therefore the application for a s32 certificate was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHAN PAK-KAY ANDREW

HKSAR v. CHUNG TZE-CHUN IVAN

HKSAR v. LAM YAN-MING

HKSAR v. CHICK WAI-HO

HKSAR v. LI SUI-LEUNG