Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delegation of power

Legal area

Court

24 May 2005

LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation

LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL82/2003

The court found on the evidence that Tsing Yi Hui was not an indigenous village within the meaning of Cap.576, that the Secretary's decision of 18 July 2003 was correct and lawful, that consultation with the Rural Committee was proper and did not invalidate the decision, and that the applicant failed to establish indigenous inhabitant status or sufficient interest; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
7 Oct 1998

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/1998

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because none of the issues raised amounted to questions of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) and the application failed on its merits; a preliminary jurisdictional point as to whether a right of appeal exists against refusal of leave was raised but not decided.
15 Sept 1998

In re Chan Tak Shing

Citation

In re Chan Tak Shing
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL25/1998

Where misconduct allegations cannot be established to the degree required for disciplinary punishment under sections 9 or 10 but support a loss of confidence, it is lawful for the Chief Executive to require retirement in the public interest under section 12; compliance with s12 is satisfied if the officer was informed of the grounds and given a chance to make representations, and nondisclosure of documents that do not introduce new grounds does not render the procedure unfair.
9 Mar 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN QUOC CUONG and Another

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN QUOC CUONG and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/1991

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the appeal for want of prosecution because there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay (about four years) in pursuing an appeal from a public law judgment, the applicants failed to pursue the appeal with reasonable vigour or satisfactorily excuse the delay (including reliance on legal aid and UNHCR processes), and the delay risked detriment to good administration; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and struck out.
14 Apr 1994

Chan Kong Tit and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OFIMMIGRATION

Citation

Chan Kong Tit and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OFIMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/1993

The appeal is dismissed because (1) the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against the Director's exercise of immigration powers due to the section 11 exemption as affirmed in Hai Ho Tak, and (2) Hong Kong's policy of accepting 75 one-way permits per day and the fact that the PRC selects recipients does not constitute an unlawful delegation or an unreasonable exercise of immigration control; accordingly the Director's Removal Order was lawful.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

In re Chan Tak Shing

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN QUOC CUONG and Another

Chan Kong Tit and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OFIMMIGRATION