Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonableness test

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2020

陳炳華及另一人 v. 家利物業管理有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA20/2019

The Court dismissed the appeal because the DMC was executed before CECO's effective date and thus CECO did not apply (s19); in any event s8(1) conditions for CECO to apply were not satisfied on these facts; Clause B6, fairly construed, exempted or limited the Manager's liability except for criminality, dishonesty or wilful negligence and is wide enough to cover ordinary negligence; there was no actionable nuisance attributable to the Manager on the facts; factual findings that the Manager arranged regular cleaning and was only negligent in not issuing reminders were upheld; the appellant as a…
11 Jun 2009

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MATT JAMES PEARCE

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MATT JAMES PEARCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1078/2008

The magistrate's conclusion that there was no case to answer was perverse because he misapplied Yeung May Wan by overstating similarities, failed to account for material distinctions (single demonstrator, deliberate control of pedestrians, persistence and individual longer blockages) and over-relied on aggregate statistics; on the evidence there was a case to answer, so the appeal is allowed and the magistrate's dismissal is set aside with remittal for trial de novo.
30 Dec 2008

C v. H

Citation

C v. H
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC315/2008

Applying the reasonableness test and broad-brush approach, the court found the Wife's reasonable monthly needs at about HK$38,500 and, after allowing a HK$5,000 reduction in the Husband's claimed post-separation expenses, concluded the Husband had capacity to pay HK$20,000 per month as MPS; ordered payment of HK$20,000 monthly from 1 August 2008, apportioned HK$5,000 to the Wife and HK$5,000 to each of the three children, with credit for mortgage instalments and helper salary paid directly by Husband from 1 August 2008, and ordered costs in favour of the Wife (assessed at HK$18,000 if made ab…
19 Apr 2007

CATHAY PLASTIC FACTORY LTD v. GOLDEN RICH INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

CATHAY PLASTIC FACTORY LTD v. GOLDEN RICH INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA756/2005

Because the plaintiff could not reasonably know the extent of the defendant's infringing activities at the start and High Court remedies were potentially appropriate, it was reasonable to commence in the High Court; settlement occurred quickly and transfer was impracticable, and no binding agreement to District Court scale was established, therefore the bill of costs must be taxed at High Court scale.
3 Nov 2006

BGC CAPITAL MARKETS (HONG KONG) LTD v. JAMES PRIEST AND ANOTHER

Citation

BGC CAPITAL MARKETS (HONG KONG) LTD v. JAMES PRIEST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2214/2006

The court granted interim injunctions restraining the defendants from soliciting or dealing with clients of the Asia Emerging Markets FX Options Desk with whom they had had material/regular dealings in the 12 months prior to 30 September 2006, running until 31 March 2007 (or further order), because those non‑solicit/non‑deal restraints were reasonable and necessary to protect the plaintiff's legitimate interest and damages would be inadequate; the proposed non‑compete restraint was overbroad and unreasonable (even when narrowed) and was dismissed as void.
14 Aug 2006

DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. L

Citation

DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. L
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP972/2006

Applying the objective test of reasonableness set out in W (An Infant), the court found the parents' prolonged absence, failure to engage meaningfully, their disabilities' effect on parenting, unsuitable living conditions and lack of realistic prospect of providing a safe family environment meant the mother's consent was unreasonably withheld; in this exceptional case the court dispensed with consent and declared the children free for adoption and granted the father rights as if legitimate under s.3(d).
3 Mar 2006

LIU HONG KEUNG v. LIU CHING LEUNG

Citation

LIU HONG KEUNG v. LIU CHING LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4173/2002

The defendant breached clause 2K by failing to restore the land and failed to provide vacant possession as to encroaching structures; however full cost of reinstatement ($1.8M) would be disproportionate and inappropriate because the plaintiff did not intend to return the land to agricultural use and had authorised repaving in 2002, therefore damages are properly assessed by reference to a reasonable compensation for loss of expectation (loss of amenity) for the period until plaintiff altered the land, together with a sum for mesne profits for encroachment; total judgment $150,000 with orders…
7 Sept 2004

THE COMMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. YAU LAI MAN, AGNES t/a L.M. YAU & CO

Citation

THE COMMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. YAU LAI MAN, AGNES t/a L.M. YAU & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/2004

Computations of loss issued by an assessor do not constitute 'assessments' for purposes of ss60 and 70 of the IRO because an assessment presupposes a positive tax liability; accordingly the 19 January 2001 notices for 1995/96 and 1997/98 were valid (either original or valid additional assessments within s60 and permitted by the s70 proviso) and the Board erred in holding otherwise and in applying the Reasonableness Test absent an agreement; appeal allowed with costs to appellant.
15 Aug 2003

CHAN KWONG MAN AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

CHAN KWONG MAN AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR36/2000

The Tribunal held that claims for professional costs under s.10(2)(e)(ii) are to be determined on a time basis because the statutory reasonableness test requires particulars of time spent and the experience of professionals, information not provided by the one-fee scale, and therefore assessment on a time basis is necessary and preferable.
26 Nov 1981

SUSAN BUCHANAN v. JANESVILLE LTD

Citation

SUSAN BUCHANAN v. JANESVILLE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV123/1981

The restraint clause was void as an unreasonable restraint of trade because its geographical scope (the entire colony of Hong Kong) and its wide prohibition ('in any capacity connected with hairdressing') were broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests; accordingly the interlocutory injunction based on that covenant was wrongly granted and must be discharged.