25 Apr 2002
Defendant was liable for one‑third of the damages because he drove the public light bus at high speed, cut lanes, failed to keep a proper lookout and entered the junction on amber when he should have been able to stop, whereas the Plaintiff was also negligent for running a red light and bore the remaining responsibility.
19 Jul 2001
The judge's interventions were constructive and not excessive; any minor factual misstatement about A2's presence was immaterial in the context of the proven joint enterprise and other evidence (including fingerprints); the judge properly assessed credibility of witnesses notwithstanding criminal records; on the whole the convictions were safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
23 Feb 2001
The magistrate accepted the credible, uncontradicted evidence of the pedestrian and police witnesses that the pedestrian was on the zebra crossing when struck; that evidence supported a conviction for careless driving though not for reckless driving; driving slowly did not negate lack of attention; there was no basis to overturn the magistrate's findings, so the appeal was dismissed.
1 Feb 2001
Defendant was negligent in causing the collision (convicted for reckless driving and gave no evidence to disprove negligence); plaintiff was contributorily negligent at 20% because he was intoxicated and ought to have realised the risk of being driven by the defendant; damages were assessed for multiple heads with some claims disallowed or limited and total award reduced by 20% producing judgment for plaintiff of HKD 2,740,120.00 plus interest and costs.
18 Jan 2001
On the facts the second Defendant drove the courtesy car on an unauthorised errand, at excessive speed and with conduct inconsistent with a legitimate job task; his act was an independent wrongful act not sufficiently connected with authorised duties, so the employer was not vicariously liable and liability rests on the driver.
18 Jan 2001
On the evidence (security video, witness testimony and the 2nd Defendant's inconsistent statements) the 2nd Defendant acted outside the scope of his employment — he had no authority to drive off the hired courtesy car for the trip he undertook; therefore the employer (Ritz-Carlton) is not vicariously liable and liability rests with Lo Sin Tak, with insurers' joinder and costs consequences as ordered.
17 Jan 2001
The Court held the trial judge properly evaluated all evidence including interviews and medical reports, reasonably preferred the evidence of PW1 and PW2, was entitled to reject self-defence on grounds of disproportionate injuries, and her differing conclusions on separate charges were justified by differing evidence; accordingly the convictions are safe and the sentences appropriate.
17 Jan 2001
The Appeal Committee refused the application for leave to appeal because the magistrate's sentence and disqualification were within her powers and discretion given the admitted facts of deliberate risky driving and the applicant's record; there was no grave and substantial injustice to justify further appeal.
8 Jan 2001
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show substantial and grave injustice; the Court of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the trial judge's problematic findings were not essential to the verdict and ample evidence supported the convictions, rendering the convictions safe.
14 Dec 2000
No point of law of great and general importance was demonstrated and no substantial injustice was shown; therefore the application for a certificate and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.