Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delegation of decision‑making

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

RIPON TALUKDAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2023/2020

The Board's decision to dismiss BOR 2 risk was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; BOR 2 was not arguable in light of the prior rejection of BOR 3; the adjudicator's incorrect title was immaterial because he was a Board member with authority to decide; consequently the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable claim and leave is refused.
10 Oct 2025

TARGET INSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1343/2025

On the unchallenged evidence the Acting Secretary only provided administrative assistance after the LRC had deliberated and made its decision, the drafting process followed the published Procedures which incorporate the safeguards required by the CFA in Helen Chan (non‑participation, drafting after decision, and tribunal scrutiny/modification), and there was no factual basis to infer injection of the Secretary's own reasoning; accordingly the applicants failed to show any reasonably arguable public law ground of review and leave was dismissed.
30 Jul 2014

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV25/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions presented would re-litigate now-pointless issues about whether the January letters were appealable decisions when a subsequent undisputed substantive decision of the Authority (30 June 2014) exists; the leave application improperly sought to raise new evidential grounds not argued below contrary to Flywin principles; and concerns about premature interference with investigations were moot once the substantive decision had been made.
21 Mar 2014

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions relied upon were fact‑sensitive and not of great general or public importance, the OFCA decision point was not properly raised below and lacked notice such that it was inappropriate to elevate it to the Court of Final Appeal, the 'truly engaged' test remains the correct test for jurisdictional issues involving negative decisions and its application depends on factual analysis of the correspondence and background, and no exceptional circumstances justified leave on the 'or otherwise' ground; costs awarded to the appellant.
28 Mar 1991

SEA DRAGON BILLIARD AND SNOOKER ASSOCIATION v. URBAN COUNCIL

Citation

SEA DRAGON BILLIARD AND SNOOKER ASSOCIATION v. URBAN COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/1991

The Court dismissed the appeal: the review proceedings cured any defect of natural justice in the initial decision, the statutory review scheme (s.125) indicates no unambiguous right to initial notification of objections, and on the facts the Council's refusal was a genuine exercise of its discretion because the Director of Fire Services' objections were overwhelming in the public interest.

Hong Kong Case Law

RIPON TALUKDAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

TARGET INSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

HONG KONG TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HKT) LTD v. THE COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

SEA DRAGON BILLIARD AND SNOOKER ASSOCIATION v. URBAN COUNCIL