Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bias and impartiality

Legal area

Court

28 May 2025

LEELAN RUKESH MARASINGHE v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1457/2018

Leave to cross-examine Dr Kong on the specified XXN Issues is justified and granted because there are apparent, material conflicts between the evidence of affiants and disclosed communications that cannot be resolved on the affidavits alone, and because the applicant is entitled to test Dr Kong's reliability, partiality and credibility on those narrow issues; the cross-examination is limited and to be conducted before the judge hearing the substantive judicial review.
20 Sept 2022

HO SHUN MIU v. DIRECTOR OF BROADCASTING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL260/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the primary decisions (appraisal reports, PSC advice and non-renewal) were in substance private employment matters not amenable to judicial review, the applicant was substantially delayed in challenging the earlier decisions and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable on the merits; the SCS dismissal of representations under PSAO was also not reviewable on public law grounds in the circumstances.
27 Apr 2021

ALLIED EVER HOLDINGS LTD v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 577
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2018

The Court of Appeal held Judge To did not err in exercising his discretion: the liquidators' cumulative conduct — entertaining belated and unsubstantiated proofs of debt, resurrecting a stale tax issue while having prior knowledge, failing to investigate or recover apparent misappropriations, assisting an interested party in related litigation — gave rise to a real and reasonable perception of bias and forfeited confidence in them as officers of the court, justifying removal; the appeal was dismissed.
28 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

Application dismissed: on the balance of probabilities the recorded pre-trial publicity was limited in scale and largely historic, passage of time and available judicial measures (directions, adjournment, jury vetting) meant a fair trial remained practicable; therefore the threshold that no direction could remove prejudice was not met and a permanent stay as abuse of process was not warranted.
22 Apr 2008

ELIJAH SAATORI v. BARRY JOSEPH YEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. BARRY JOSEPH YEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced attacked findings of fact and credibility rather than raising any question of law or jurisdiction; the Adjudicator's conduct did not meet the informed-bystander threshold for bias or denial of fair trial, evidentiary rulings on hearsay and unsigned statements were proper, and the defence under s40BI(2) was correctly considered on the facts.
8 Aug 2006

TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA890/2003

The application to recuse was dismissed because the alleged delay was reasonably explained and comparable to other matters, there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias in the hearing or decision on the defendants' summons, and the court lawfully corrected and drafted the sealed order before sealing so the allegation of a false instrument was unfounded; accordingly recusal was not justified and costs were ordered nisi against the plaintiff.
23 Sept 2005

ORTIZ GINALYN KILAPKILAP v. BO LI

Citation

ORTIZ GINALYN KILAPKILAP v. BO LI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA101/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or excess of jurisdiction; the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were matters of fact not reviewable on leave, and the Presiding Officer acted within statutory investigative powers and lawful discretion without demonstrable bias.
22 Nov 2000

FRANCIS CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL

Citation

FRANCIS CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV19/2000

Leave to appeal refused because (1) appeal as of right did not arise: the penalty decision was separate and any financial consequence was speculative and below the statutory trigger; (2) discretionary leave under s22(1)(b) not warranted because the questions advanced were either fact‑bound or insufficiently arguable to produce a different result; and (3) on the facts the evidence did not establish actual or real danger of bias nor that the isolated misconduct of one tribunal member tainted the tribunal's unanimous findings.
25 Oct 2000

LAM SZE MING AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM SZE MING AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1150/2000

Non‑disclosure of certain documents did not breach natural justice because the undisclosed items were not material to the disciplinary issues or were not in the prosecutor's possession; procedural complaints were within permissible tribunal discretion and did not render the hearing unfair; the adjudicator applied the correct burden and standard of proof; and there was no real danger of bias — accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed and the dismissal stands.
18 Apr 2000

THAPA INDRA BAHADUR v. THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

THAPA INDRA BAHADUR v. THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV375/1999

There was no real danger that Mrs Ip was unconsciously biased and the Secretary for Security's decisions to make and to confirm the deportation order were not Wednesbury unreasonable on the facts; the appeal is dismissed and the deportation order and its confirmation stand.