Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Article 82 basic law

  • 10 Mar 2020

    AH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFA 5
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV3/2020

    The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal to consider two certified questions: (1) whether leave to appeal under s.14AA(1) is required where the CFI refuses an extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review (including where extension and leave hearings coincide); and (2) whether s.14AB insofar as it relates to judicial review is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law. Consideration of other certified questions was adjourned pending determination of these questions; the appeals were listed for hearing.

  • 29 May 2017

    SAM WOO MARINE WORKS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO HANG BUILDING

    Citation
    SAM WOO MARINE WORKS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO HANG BUILDING
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV10/2016

    Sections 63(1), 63A(2) and 63B of the District Court Ordinance, properly construed and notwithstanding HKCFAO ss19 and 22(1)(b), operate to make a Court of Appeal refusal of leave to appeal final and non‑appealable to the Court of Final Appeal; that limitation pursues legitimate aims, is rationally connected to them and is no more than necessary, and is therefore a proportionate and constitutional qualification of the Court's power of final adjudication under Article 82.

  • 2 Jun 2010

    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV3/2010

    Leave to appeal was granted to the Court of Final Appeal solely on the constitutional question whether section 67(3) of the Legislative Council Ordinance is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law because that issue is determinative of whether the applicant may proceed beyond the Court of First Instance; the original application for leave to appeal against the CFI order was dismissed because the appropriate route to challenge the CFI's finality (if the provision is struck down) is by an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the High Court Ordinance, and the Appeal Committee lacked jurisdi…

  • 2 Jun 2010

    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV11/2010

    The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal on the single constitutional question whether section 67(3) is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law, dismissed the original application for leave to appeal against Reyes J's order because there was no basis for a direct appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and directed that if section 67(3) is upheld Reyes J's determination remains final, whereas if it is struck down the applicant must pursue a substantive appeal in the Court of Appeal under section 14(1) High Court Ordinance.

  • 11 Dec 2009

    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV115/2009

    The Court held that the combined effect of s.67(3) of the LegCo Ordinance and s.14(3)(c) of the High Court Ordinance, which prevents an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeal, does not constitute a disproportionate limitation on the power of final adjudication under Article 82 of the Basic Law; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the first instance determination upheld.