Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of First Instance upheld a transport policy limiting access to vehicle-register particulars, finding it lawful and proportionate, while acknowledging bona fide journalism may still qualify in appropriate cases.
Appeal and case stated heard together over PDPO doxxing convictions. The court upheld the convictions, corrected the interpretation of s64(6)(c), and remitted Charge 1 for sentence.
The District Court upheld a licensed money lender’s claims, found no proved forgery or unlawful debt collection, and dismissed Delay’s counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s challenge to a misconduct in public office conviction, holding the proven disclosure and retainer did not meet the criminal seriousness threshold.
Court accepted defendant acted under authorization and in course of employment to determine urgency, found defendant not a data user for purposes of PDPO s66 and that there was no unauthorized use or disclosure; breach of confidence claim fails for lack of unauthorized use and absence of requisite elements; discrimination claim fails for lack of evidence linking any differential treatment to plaintiff's disability; credibility findings undermined plaintiff's case.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance refused leave for judicial review in HCAL 1873/2024 and permitted withdrawal of HCAL 1874/2024, holding the matters were private law and not reviewable.
The High Court dismissed leave for judicial review in HCAL 1873/2024 and permitted withdrawal in HCAL 1874/2024, finding no arguable public law error.
Because the first defendant unequivocally informed the court that it did not intend to seek costs in relation to the applicant's leave application, the court revoked the earlier order requiring the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs and made no order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant in respect of that application.
Source excerpt
Court accepted that the Department had over-collected certain personal data in breach of PDPO principles but plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the contravention caused the claimed psychiatric injury and economic losses; allegations of misfeasance in public office were unsupported and speculative; claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
Source excerpt
On a re‑hearing of all evidence the court concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, without the data‑subject's consent and without verifying identities, disclosed sufficient identifying personal data and acted with recklessness as to the risk of specified harm; specified harm includes causing the person reasonably to be concerned for their safety or well‑being under s64(6)(c); therefore the convictions under PDPO s64(3A)/(3B) are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
