CHIM SUI PING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

CHIM SUI PING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Applying the proportionality framework (as articulated in Pinnock) to the facts, the court found the HA entitled to terminate the tenancy for breach, the eviction was a proportionate means to achieve legitimate aims of managing scarce public rental housing and preventing tenancy abuse, and there was no unlawful fettering or procedural impropriety; judicial review dismissed.

Citation
CHIM SUI PING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; 1st Respondent: Hong Kong Housing Authority; 2nd Respondent: The Appeal Tribunal (appointed under s 7A(6) of the Housing Ordinance, Cap 283)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2012
Case Number
HCAL139/2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed; judicial review refused on all grounds
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Tenancy Termination, Fettering Discretion, Procedural Impropriety, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Housing Law Human Rights Law Proportionality Tenancy Termination Fettering Discretion Procedural Impropriety Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Hong Kong Housing Authority

1st Respondent

The Appeal Tribunal (appointed under s 7A(6) of the Housing Ordinance, Cap 283)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HA and Appeal Tribunal failed to take into account right to home under BL 29 and Art 14
  2. 2 Whether the HA and Appeal Tribunal decisions were a disproportionate interference with right to home
  3. 3 Whether HA fettered its discretion by rigid policy in issuing Notice to Quit

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the proportionality framework (as articulated in Pinnock) to the facts, the court found the HA entitled to terminate the tenancy for breach, the eviction was a proportionate means to achieve legitimate aims of managing scarce public rental housing and preventing tenancy abuse, and there was no unlawful fettering or procedural impropriety; judicial review dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judicial review refused on all grounds

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs in favour of the 1st respondent (Hong Kong Housing Authority) to be taxed if not agreed