Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights articles 10 and 11

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3605/2016

The judge ruled that defendants are not required to make an election whether to call evidence at the time they make a submission of no case to answer; the criminal procedure applies to the election issue in committal/contempt proceedings because Articles 10 and 11 HKBoR require the protection afforded by the criminal no-case mechanism (the defendant may "wait and see" and decide only after the court's ruling), and Order 52 r6(4) is to be read purposively within the court's power to regulate procedure.
29 Mar 2019

RE KIM DOTCOM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 843
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP116/2012

Application to discharge the 2012 Hong Kong restraint order was refused because the defendants' challenge amounted to an abuse of process: the SJ's executive decision to assist under the MLAO should have been challenged by judicial review; ancillary arguments on dual criminality and the HKBORO declarations were either resolved against the applicants on legal interpretation or were premature, and no relief was granted.
29 Jan 2016

TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL176/2013

The Decision was quashed because the process as a whole did not satisfy Article 10: the Authority, being an administrative policy/advisory body acting as investigator, prosecutor and decision-maker, lacked the objective independence and impartiality required for adjudication of TVB's civil rights; an appeal to the CEIC is an executive/administrative review incapable of curing that defect; judicial review in the High Court was not a sufficient curative safeguard in the circumstances (no court of full jurisdiction to re-evaluate facts and merits), so the Decision breached Article 10. Alternativ…
14 Jun 2013

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE <br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1201/2008

The applicant had no reasonably arguable case except in relation to four disciplinary decisions within time; leave to apply for judicial review was granted only in respect of those four decisions, habeas corpus leave was refused, and on the facts and conduct of the application there were exceptional circumstances to order the applicant to pay 80% of the putative respondent's costs of the section 27A application with 20% to be costs in the cause of the judicial review proceedings; costs of the affirmation in HCAL 161/2012 are included and the applicant's costs are to be taxed pursuant to the L…

Hong Kong Case Law

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

RE KIM DOTCOM AND OTHERS

TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD v. COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE