Hong Kong Case Law

王寬裕 對 勞福局及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL258/2026

Permission was refused because the applicant failed to particularise the decision and grounds for judicial review, provided incoherent and incomplete supporting materials, sought relief that was not properly within judicial review, and consequently showed no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of process.

Source excerpt

• Permission stage
• Particularity of grounds
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure orders
• Cctv evidence
• Legal aid

Read case analysis

余欣德 對 行政上訴委員會 私隱專員公署 [Decision on Leave Application]

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL758/2026

申請人未能就擬提出的司法覆核申請顯示出可合理勝算或真實成功機會；委員會及公署的行為在法律上並無可撼動之錯誤或超出申請人許可申請所及之範圍，因此拒絕給予司法覆核許可及拒絕暫緩聆訊。

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness
• Administrative appeals
• Personal data disclosure
• Leave to apply for judicial review
• Stay application

Read case analysis

X v. Y COMPANY

Court

District Court

Case number

DCMP5633/2025

The District Court granted amended Norwich Pharmacal, gagging, anonymity and no-inspection orders in an internet fraud case, while noting procedural defects and open justice concerns.

• Norwich pharmacal order
• Gagging order
• Anonymity order
• Sealing court file
• Jurisdiction to grant pre-action equitable relief
• Practice direction compliance

Read case analysis

THE HONG KONG JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL559/2024

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.

• Access to public register
• Vehicle particulars
• Proportionality
• Ultra vires
• Fettering of discretion
• Unreasonable delay

Read case analysis

林進傑 對 行政上訴委員會

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL12/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Appellate Board's factual findings — that the respondent only held the applicant's phone number and the information that the number was an HKBN customer — were reasonable and such information did not constitute 'personal data' under PDPO s2(b); accordingly the Privacy Commissioner lawfully declined to investigate under s39(2)(d); procedural fairness complaints failed because applicant elected not to attend and late documents were justifiably excluded; no real conflict of interest established.

Source excerpt

• Personal data definition
• Investigation powers under pdpo
• Procedural fairness
• Wednesbury unreasonableness
• Evidence and fact finding
• Costs risk at permission stage

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. IP, ANTHONY CHUN HIN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA198/2023

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.

• Doxxing
• Personal data (privacy) ordinance (pdpo) s64
• Magistracy appeal (rehearing)
• Case stated appeal
• Amendment of information
• Personal-data-privacy-ordinance

Read case analysis

K v. SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCAL646/2022

The Court held that PCCBR regulations 7 and 10 unconstitutionally restricted a transgender applicant’s privacy and equality rights, and suspended the striking down for 12 months.

• Gender identity
• Public conveniences regulation
• Remedial construction
• Proportionality
• Equality
• Gender-identity

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 楊卓羲

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA432/2024

The magistrate lawfully and reasonably ordered disclosure of the two psychiatric reports to the prosecution under s45 of the Mental Health Ordinance to enable the prosecution to fulfil its public‑interest oversight role; confidentiality safeguards and absence of evidence of risk of improper disclosure meant the appellant's privacy objection did not justify withholding the reports, and the appellate court, on rehearing of the matter, upheld that conclusion.

Source excerpt

• Disclosure of psychiatric reports
• Section 45 mental health ordinance
• Public interest prosecution
• Prosecution disclosure obligations
• Acquittal and subsequent orders
• Confidentiality of health records

Read case analysis

練碧儂 對 李秀瓊

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ1409/2021

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

• Personal data (privacy) ordinance s66
• Definition of data user s2(12)
• Breach of confidence elements
• Disability discrimination ordinance s6 and s8
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 張子良

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA80/2024

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

• Personal data (privacy) ordinance s64(3a),(3b)
• Specified harm
• Recklessness
• Intent
• Appellate re-hearing standard
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis