Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delegation of powers

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

AMEEN KHAWAJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL370/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground; the Board's factual findings and assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the minor misdescription of an adjudicator's administrative title did not invalidate the decision.
28 Jan 2026

KHAN NASIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL359/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds or particulars and the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's credibility‑based findings; the incorrect description of the adjudicator's office was immaterial and did not nullify the decision.
12 Nov 2025

CHEUNG TAT MING ERIC v. THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL529/2022

The Council lawfully retained power to refer under s9A and its departure from internal standard procedure was justified on the facts: the independent panel provided a fair and impartial fact-finding process, practical quorum and administrative difficulties existed, and the referral was an interim investigatory step; on balance there was no procedural unfairness or real possibility of bias such as to vitiate the Decision, and bad faith was not established. The judicial review application is dismissed.
4 Nov 2025

ANWAR FIAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5258
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL968/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to present a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects: the grounds were vague and lacked required particulars; the Board conducted a fair hearing, provided detailed reasons and properly assessed evidence; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated; factual assessments are not for judicial review.
26 Aug 2025

SHAH SAEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3836
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL804/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds and the court, after anxious scrutiny, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's factual risk assessments fell within its remit and were supported by the evidence and up‑to‑date country circumstances; the misdescription of the adjudicator's capacity was immaterial as he was in fact a member of the Board with power to decide the petition.
27 Jan 2025

JUMIATI v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 481
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1559/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success: HA applied its published policy, considered the relevant materials (including the timing of the non-refoulement claim as a relevant factor), exercised its discretion lawfully, provided reasons adequate in context, and the Decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or the product of unlawful delegation.
5 Jan 2024

KARTING ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG, CHINA LTD v. THE HONG KONG, CHINA AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1/2024

The interim-interim mandatory injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to show the high degree of assurance required for mandatory relief: the alleged contract/delegation was not clearly established, there was insufficient evidence of bad faith, urgency and the risk of imminent prejudice (including to funding) were not adequately proven, and forcing delegation would prejudice the defendant.
21 Oct 2022

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1054/2022

The Secretary had no statutory power under Cap 599L or Cap 599F to overturn or invalidate specified medical exemption certificates as defined by section 17 of Cap 599L; the Directions (GN 893, 895, 896 of 2022) implementing that Decision were ultra vires and were quashed because the specific MEC regime in ss 5 and 17 cannot be subverted by broader direction-making powers.
6 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴張錦輝

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA90/2019

The Court held that the prosecution proved all elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt: the appellant's teacher registration had been validly cancelled (delegation evidenced and valid), he remained in school during the charged period without the required written permission, and s72(2)(a)(ii) and the approval mechanism are constitutional and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting pupils and school management. Collateral challenge to the administrative cancellation was not permissible in the criminal trial. Accordingly the convictions and sentence were upheld.
31 Aug 2018

CHEE FEE MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL73/2013

Section 104A(1)(b), as applied to banners displayed with a degree of permanence and habitual regularity at demonstrators' sites, failed the 'prescribed by law' requirement because the statute contains no criteria or accessible legal guidance limiting the Director's discretion and thus did not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference with freedoms of expression, assembly and demonstration; accordingly decisions taken under s104C(1) premised on s104A were quashed. The proportionality challenge was not decided on the merits given evidential gaps and the successful legal certaint…