LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER

The Board of Review performs an administrative function and does not exercise the judicial power of the HKSAR; the combination of the case stated appeal mechanism and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court by way of judicial review provides adequate access to courts under Article 35; the case stated procedure is not unconstitutional and the applicants' prior appeals were valid and binding, so the judicial review application must be dismissed.

Citation
LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: Lee Yee Shing Jacky; 2nd Applicant: Yeung Yuk Ching; 1st Respondent: Board of Review (Inland Revenue Ordinance); 2nd Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 February 2011
Case Number
HCAL40/2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision (judgment 22 February 2011)
Outcome
application for judicial review dismissed; prior appeals valid and binding
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Court, Case Stated Procedure, Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Appeal Rights, Tax Assessment
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tax Law Procedural Law Right of Access to Court Case Stated Procedure Judicial Review Separation of Powers +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Yee Shing Jacky

1st Applicant

Yeung Yuk Ching

2nd Applicant

Board of Review (Inland Revenue Ordinance)

1st Respondent

Commissioner of Inland Revenue

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision (judgment 22 February 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case stated appeal procedure under s.69 IRO breaches Article 35 Basic Law (right of access to courts)
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Review exercises the judicial power of the HKSAR
  3. 3 Whether availability of case stated plus judicial review provides adequate judicial protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Board of Review performs an administrative function and does not exercise the judicial power of the HKSAR; the combination of the case stated appeal mechanism and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court by way of judicial review provides adequate access to courts under Article 35; the case stated procedure is not unconstitutional and the applicants' prior appeals were valid and binding, so the judicial review application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review dismissed; prior appeals valid and binding

Orders

  • Judicial review dismissed
  • Costs nisi: Applicants to pay 2nd Respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed