Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Basic law articles 6 and 105

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2021

WONG TAK HUNG v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2161/2020

The applications for leave to apply for judicial review were dismissed because they were not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success; the delay of over 5.5 years was substantial and unjustified so no extension of time would be granted; the BSD was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and the Government was entitled to a wide margin of discretion in measures to cool the residential property market.
15 Jan 2021

LO HAU FAI AND ANOTHER v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2163/2020

The 11 applications for leave to apply for judicial review were dismissed because they were not reasonably arguable, had no realistic prospect of success, and were fatally delayed (over 5.5 years) with no satisfactory explanation; the imposition of BSD under s29CB was within the Government\u2019s wide margin of discretion and not manifestly without reasonable foundation, and no extension of time was granted.
15 Jan 2021

TAM LAI HA AND ANOTHER v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2155/2020

The court refused the 11 applications for leave to apply for judicial review because they were not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success: the BSD imposed under s29CB is not manifestly without reasonable foundation and falls within the Government\'s wide margin of discretion to regulate the residential property market; additionally the applicants\' excessive delay (over 5.5 years) warranted refusal to extend time; accordingly leave was dismissed and no extension granted.
15 Jan 2021

TAM LAI HA AND ANOTHER v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2156/2020

The court dismissed all 11 applications for leave to apply for judicial review as not reasonably arguable and having no realistic prospect of success: the BSD imposed under s 29CB is not manifestly without reasonable foundation, the Government is entitled to a wide discretion in cooling the housing market and, even under a stricter proportionality test, BSD can be justified; additionally the applicants' delay of over 5.5 years was inexcusable and no extension of time was warranted.
15 Jan 2021

WONG WAI YAT WAH AND ANOTHER v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2159/2020

The 11 applications for leave to apply for judicial review are dismissed as not reasonably arguable and having no realistic prospect of success: the imposition of BSD under s29CB is within the Government\u2019s wide discretion to cool the property market and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation; even under the no-more-than-reasonably-necessary test the measure is justifiable; moreover the applicants displayed inordinate unexplained delay (over 5.5 years) and no extension of time is granted.
15 Jan 2021

CHIU WAI LAM AND ANOTHER v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2162/2020

The 11 leave applications were dismissed because they were not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success; the BSD under s29CB is within the Government's wide discretion and not manifestly without reasonable foundation, and the applicants disclosed a substantial unexplained delay (over 5.5 years) such that no extension of time would be granted.
8 Jan 2020

WONG WING WAH v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2020] HKDC 41
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA97/2016

Buyer’s Stamp Duty is a taxation measure authorised by Article 108 of the Basic Law; Articles 6 and 105 are not engaged by genuine tax legislation such as BSD, therefore section 29CB(2)(a) does not infringe the Basic Law and the appellant’s constitutional challenge fails; precedent in Weson and Wong Chak Sin is followed.
13 Dec 2016

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV21/2015

Although the Court accepted that Articles 6 and 105 engage and that proportionality (including a balancing fourth step) is the appropriate constitutional test for planning restrictions affecting private property, the appellants did not obtain the relief that such restrictions were disproportionate; given the limited and potentially non‑determinative nature of the constitutional ruling and the overall result, the fairest order was that each party bear its own costs and the order nisi of no order as to costs was made final.
26 Sept 2016

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV21/2015

Articles 6 and 105 are engaged where planning restrictions encroach upon landowners' property rights; such encroachments must be justified by a proportionality assessment adopting a structured test (legitimate aim; rational connection; no more than necessary; and an overall balancing/fair-balance fourth step). In town planning cases where the Board has lawfully exercised its expertise and judgment constitutional review will generally be constrained by a broad margin of discretion and be limited to intervention where measures are manifestly without reasonable foundation.
19 Sept 2007

HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the application to assert that ss.7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance are inconsistent with the Basic Law and to claim compensation from the private respondents was barred by the principle of finality in litigation: the constitutional point could and should have been taken in the earlier proceedings, and the Court of Final Appeal had already established that the Extension Ordinance did not alter the title or limitation position.