Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable cause

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2023

梁焯廉對張錦成

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1580
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4641/2022

The appeal is dismissed and the registrar's strike‑out and costs orders are upheld because the statement of claim fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action: it lacks particulars of the alleged misrepresentations, does not plead facts connecting the subordinate or her employer to the defendant so as to impose personal liability, and any amendment would not cure these defects; the out‑of‑time appeal was permitted but the substantive strike‑out was correctly ordered.
24 Dec 2018

LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1496
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC250/2017

The applicant failed to show reasonable cause for refusing the s16 medical examination; the statutory sanction in s16(4) operates to disentitle the employee to compensation where the failure extends beyond 15 days unless reasonable cause is established; the reasons put forward (unstable condition, preference for joint examination, related High Court action) were not reasonable causes within s16 and the claim was dismissed.
7 Oct 2005

CHOW KWONG FAI, EDWARD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHOW KWONG FAI, EDWARD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2005

The Court held the appellant's delay was caused by his own misreading and unilateral misunderstanding of s66(1) and not by any actionable misrepresentation by Board staff; "statement of facts" in s66(1) means the statement provided by the Commissioner; unilateral mistake or ignorance does not constitute "reasonable cause" or make the appellant "prevented" from lodging the appeal, therefore the Board did not err in refusing an extension and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Apr 2004

DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE CO v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE CO v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA4/2004

The court refused the s.14(5B) extension because the appellant's approximately five‑month delay was caused by indecision over fees and delay by legal advisers and counsel, which did not constitute illness, absence from Hong Kong or other reasonable cause; Order 3 Rule 5 does not apply to statutory time limits in the Ordinance; therefore leave to appeal out of time was denied.
13 May 2002

HKSAR v. HO CHUN BONG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO CHUN BONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA205/2002

The court applied an objective standard to 'reasonable cause' under s20(c), held that the massive number and persistence of calls justified the inference that the purpose was to annoy and that there was no reasonable cause, found no reversal of the prosecution's burden, treated post‑offence calls only as admissible for complainant credibility, and concluded the magistrate properly considered and rejected the contested evidence; accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

梁焯廉 對 張錦成

LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

CHOW KWONG FAI, EDWARD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE CO v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

HKSAR v. HO CHUN BONG

梁焯廉對張錦成