Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of care

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

XIE CHENGSI v. 陸婉儀 TRADING AS PRIME SERVICES & TRADING CO

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA49/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, made permissible factual evaluations, there was no identifiable error of law in treating certain statements as opinion or honestly held belief, the Claimant did not establish reasonable reliance or an assumption of responsibility, and the Employment Agencies Code of Practice does not itself create contractual or statutory obligations.
5 May 2026

香港特別行政區訴張兆鈞

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA275/2025

The appellate court, on rehearing of the trial evidence and dashcam footage, concluded the trial judge rightly accepted the front driver’s credible evidence and the footage, found the appellant approached at an insufficiently reduced speed and only braked urgently at very short range, and that this constituted a failure to exercise appropriate care and regard for other road users; there was no evidence of brake failure to rebut that conclusion, so the conviction for careless driving stands.
17 Dec 2024

RE RAZA KASHIF

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1144
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV359/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, raised no reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and disclosed no basis under the "otherwise" limb to grant leave.
13 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴張兆鈞

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2844
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA460/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the application did not raise any legal point of general or public importance under s32(2), did not demonstrate any substantial and grave injustice, and the trial judge's factual finding—supported by tunnel CCTV—that the appellant failed to keep a safe speed and distance was upheld.
18 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴楊家溢

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA458/2023

The dashcam evidence (P1) established that the appellant initiated a lane change without sufficient time and space given the other vehicle's speed and position; the trial judge's factual findings based on P1 were not unreasonable or illogical, and therefore the appellant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably careful driver, justifying upholding the conviction.
2 May 2023

羅梅貞對律政司司長

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA3/2023

Leave to appeal is refused because the Small Claims Tribunal's findings that the cover's raised portion was minimal, visible, and not dangerous to a reasonably cautious pedestrian are supported by evidence and not irrational; the 20mm guideline is not shown to be unreasonable and no legal error was demonstrated.
3 May 2022

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, INAAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA346/2021

The court held the magistrate erred in assuming the appellant should have anticipated PW1 would disobey a red light and enter the yellow box; on the magistrate's factual findings the appellant's conduct was consistent with a reasonably prudent driver and the prosecution did not prove lack of due care, so the conviction must be quashed.
13 Apr 2022

吳毅禮對陳慧恩

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA7/2022

Leave to appeal refused: the tribunal's findings that the appellant breached her duty of care were open on the evidence, the objective test and res ipsa loquitur were appropriately applied, the claimant's repair choice was reasonable mitigation, and the costs awards were a lawful exercise of tribunal discretion; no legal error or impossibility of the tribunal's fact‑finding was shown.
29 Mar 2022

香港特別行政區訴楊富豪

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA305/2021

On objective analysis of the video evidence the appellant failed to exercise the standard of care required of a reasonable, competent and prudent driver when overtaking in the available time; the trial judge correctly applied legal principles, did not rely on res ipsa loquitur, and the conviction was supported beyond reasonable doubt.
4 Nov 2020

YAU PO SHAN v. THE EXPRESS LIFT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 881
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP25/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the judge correctly applied res ipsa loquitur to find a prima facie case of negligence which the 1st defendant failed to rebut on the evidence (inspections did not show KVAB relay was inspected, prior recognition of relay problems, and rapid replacement indicated discoverable defect); absence of expert evidence did not entitle the 1st defendant to leave to appeal.