Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disability discrimination ordinance

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1653
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2019

The summons for a stay was dismissed because the claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal or cogent additional grounds, the fresh evidence was irrelevant, there was no evidence the appeal would be rendered nugatory by taxation, and no evidence the claimant could not meet the costs; accordingly the discretion to grant a stay was not engaged and taxation may proceed.
28 Apr 2022

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2022] HKDC 379
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2017

The court granted leave to amend the Consolidated Notice of Claim in respect of the specified amendments because the amendments related to the same disciplinary proceedings and were necessary to enable full adjudication of the real controversy, and the respondent had not demonstrated the proposed claims were bound to fail or disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the contested issues were fact sensitive and appropriate for trial.
20 Nov 2019

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1537
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2017

Under the statutory framework of the Fire Services Ordinance the Director's disciplinary process is an adjudicative mechanism affecting legal rights, and factual findings made in those proceedings can give rise to issue estoppel in subsequent civil proceedings; because material factual issues overlap and the risk of duplicative and inconsistent litigation is high, the balance of convenience and case management principles require a stay of the civil Equal Opportunities action pending the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
15 Aug 2019

莊裕安對關淑馨及另二人

Citation

[2019] HKCA 898
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP45/2019

被上訴人於原訴訟中所為屬於履行司法職責的司法行為，受基本法第85條及相關普通法原則之司法豁免權保護；申索未能披露合理的訴訟因由或顯示豁免權不適用，故依法應剔除申索、撤銷加入司法機構為答辯人及拒絕上訴許可，並命令申索人支付訟費。
8 Feb 2018

ER v. LI KWOK CHANG, LAWRENCE

Citation

[2018] HKDC 146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO10/2016

Extension of time to apply for costs was refused and the respondent's substantive costs application was dismissed because the claimant's claim was not shown to be frivolous or manifestly without prospect and there were no special circumstances warranting an award of costs; accordingly respondent must pay the claimant the costs of the summons to be taxed if not agreed, with the claimant's costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
23 May 2017

ER v. LI KWOK CHANG, LAWRENCE

Citation

ER v. LI KWOK CHANG, LAWRENCE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO10/2016

The court ordered discovery in the scope requested because the medical records from October 2014 to January 2015 (Dr John Simon), January to August 2015 (Professor van Hasselt), and records at Shatin Union Hospital concerning the specified operations are relevant and proportionate to determine whether the respondent's postponement and refusal to perform the surgery were discriminatory; limited disclosure (including viral load and antiretroviral therapy information) was acceptable and privacy concerns did not outweigh the respondent's need for the records; order made in terms of the summons in…
2 Apr 2009

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Citation

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/1999

Judgment entered in the plaintiff's absence was set aside because credible medical evidence established she was genuinely unfit and hospitalised at the trial date, she has arguable prospects that justify a retrial, prejudice to defendants from delay is compensable by security and costs, and public policy favouring access to remedies under discrimination statutes warranted giving the plaintiff one final opportunity subject to stringent conditions.
16 Jul 2007

M v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

M v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO8/2004

Claimant had disabilities but court found government officers genuinely unaware of them while claimant was employed; on comparator test a non-disabled comparator performing similarly would have been treated the same; government treatment was due to poor performance not disability; claimant's factual evidence was unreliable; application of uniform inherent AO requirements was justifiable and claimant could not, by reason of his disabilities and cognitive vulnerabilities, meet inherent requirements of the AO role even with reasonable assistance; therefore claims for direct discrimination, haras…