Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delegation of authority

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2025

MD ABDUL HALIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL557/2020

The application to withdraw was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any valid grounds, the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality after anxious scrutiny, and the Board was entitled to its factual credibility findings and conclusions on risk.
24 Feb 2023

SANJU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (HONG KONG) LTD v. WANG LISHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 531
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1612/2021

Proposed Resolutions 2 and 4, as drafted, would confer wide unilateral and effectively unlimited powers on the Chairman/CEO that conflict with the Company's existing governance framework and would likely amount to breaches of directors' duties; an injunction under s.729 CO is therefore warranted to restrain the passing or carrying out of Resolutions 2 and 4 as framed. The court declined to grant injunctions in respect of Proposed Resolutions 1 and 3 and dismissed the claim against the 3rd-5th Defendants due to insufficient evidence they would act as 'rubber stamps'.
21 Apr 2016

NG CHI KEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

NG CHI KEUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2013

The DPP lawfully and validly took over the private prosecutions and, once taken over, was entitled to apply the reasonable prospect of conviction test in deciding to discontinue; delegation by the SJ to the DPP was effective on the evidence; the application of RPC in these circumstances did not unlawfully abrogate the right of private prosecution or infringe Basic Law arts 35 or 63; there was no apparent bias nor was the decision Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the judicial review is dismissed.
7 Feb 2013

RE NG CHI KEUNG

Citation

RE NG CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2013

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant's case was unarguable: the Director/Secretary lawfully exercised prosecutorial discretion by taking over and withdrawing the unserved summonses after a full investigation and further representations, applying the Department's Policy and the "reasonable prospect of conviction" test; delegation to the Director was within authorised powers and did not give rise to demonstrable bias; withdrawal of summonses (not a nolle prosequi) was lawful; judicial interference is inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
23 Dec 2008

WONG PING HUNG ADAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

Citation

WONG PING HUNG ADAM v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL141/2007

All four principal grounds of review fail: the non-divestiture complaint was unarguable in context because equitable doctrines and consistent conduct vested title in equity and in any event the Authority and Director supported the approval; the Instrument lawfully covered the widening as 'improvement works'; the MOE was correctly applied by reference to the ordinary meaning of 'arcade' and no misapplication was shown; PNAP 30 did not give rise to a legitimate expectation requiring additional consultations. Accordingly the judicial review is dismissed and costs awarded to the Director and the…
18 Feb 2008

KMF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

KMF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL43/2007

The court held that a universal customary international law rule prohibiting refoulement of refugees exists but has not attained jus cogens status, and that Hong Kong has by consistent legislative and executive conduct repudiated and thus not incorporated that rule into domestic law; accordingly the Director is not legally obliged to conduct all refugee status determinations himself and may rely on UNHCR determinations provided he does not fetter his statutory discretion.
14 Sept 2000

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI TING CHUNG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL911/2000

Valuation and quantum disputes are for the statutory compensation machinery and not ordinarily for judicial review; the Secretary had adequate independent material and was legitimately satisfied under s.15(4)(c); no unlawful consultation under s.15(5) occurred and reasons (including promised reasons) were given and adequate, therefore the applications were dismissed.
22 Jul 1999

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION v. HONG KONG AIRCREW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Citation

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION v. HONG KONG AIRCREW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/1999

The judge held that the application to set aside the grant of leave fails because the applicant's challenge clears the low threshold for leave (a sensible or reasonable suggestion that illegality, impropriety or irrationality may be shown); therefore leave previously granted remains in place and should not be set aside.
15 May 1998

FIDELIS AHUWARAEZEAMA EMEM v. SUPERINTENDENT OF VICTORIA PRISON

Citation

FIDELIS AHUWARAEZEAMA EMEM v. SUPERINTENDENT OF VICTORIA PRISON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL26/1998

The court held that the underlying facts justified the exercise of powers under the Immigration Ordinance, the delegation and authorization under section 32(1)(a) were valid, and the detention period was not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonably long; accordingly the detention was lawful and the writ of habeas corpus was discharged.
29 Sept 1995

In re Man Yau Ho Cedric

Citation

In re Man Yau Ho Cedric
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV169/1995

The appellant's complaints were directed at flaws in the Investigating Committee and did not show that the Governor or Public Service Commission were improperly influenced or that the Governor's consideration of the appellant's Representation was unfair; no arguable public law ground was identified and granting leave would have been futile, therefore the judge rightly refused leave.