Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary powers

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2025

KHAN MUHAMMAD BILAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1224/2025

The leave application was dismissed because the Director lawfully considered the Applicant's representations, was under no legal duty to treat humanitarian/compassionate factors as determinative, and it was open to the Director to conclude there were no exceptional factors justifying departure from the Dependant Policy; the Applicant did not show the high threshold of irrationality or illegality required for judicial intervention, and therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.
19 Jan 2021

KHAN MUHAMMAD KASHIF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 97
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2207/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success: the Director acted within the prevailing dependant visa policy, there were no extenuating or exceptional circumstances warranting reversal, and no illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness was shown on the papers.
5 Mar 2018

TEHSEEN SAFDER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 481
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL656/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to provide any reasonably arguable ground showing that the Permanent Secretary's refusal to rescind or suspend the deportation order was unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable.
18 Sept 2008

RE SINGH SUKHMANDER

Citation

RE SINGH SUKHMANDER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL89/2008

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to present a reasonably arguable case supported by evidence that the Director acted irrationally, perversely or in bad faith; the Director had lawfully exercised his wide discretion after careful consideration, a prior visa grant did not bind the Director, and no exceptional compassionate or humanitarian grounds were shown.
15 Oct 2001

ROBERT MARK TAI SEN CHOY v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD

Citation

ROBERT MARK TAI SEN CHOY v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1448/2001

Although the Appeals Board had the power to re-hear and substitute its own decision, its written decision indicated undue deference to the Licensing Board and an insufficient exercise of the statutory discretion to assess whether the 11.00 p.m. condition was reasonable; therefore the Appeals Board's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted board under s3 Cap.220.
25 Jan 2000

MALIK AZMAT SHERAZI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MALIK AZMAT SHERAZI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL129/1999

The Director possessed and lawfully exercised an absolute administrative discretion to refuse the applicant's change of status; he considered relevant materials, there was no procedural irregularity and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant failed to establish an arguable case for leave to apply for judicial review.
30 Nov 1999

HENK TIDEMAN v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

HENK TIDEMAN v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL85/1999

Section 4A(1) imposes a mandatory duty on the Council to set a Licensing Examination, but subsection (4) is a discretionary power to approve courses or foreign examinations; there is no statutory duty to consider and approve individual overseas-trained dentists' qualifications, so the Council lawfully adopted a policy requiring overseas-trained dentists to pass the Licensing Examination.
29 Apr 1997

CONG VAN HA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CONG VAN HA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/1997

The Court will not, absent most exceptional circumstances, interfere at this stage with the judge's discretionary refusal to allow an amendment made in the course of the hearing; the appeal is therefore adjourned generally with liberty to restore after the High Court's determination so the significance of the refusal can be properly assessed.
15 Aug 1996

SIR PETER ANTHONY THOMPSON v. DATTENFELD LTD.

Citation

SIR PETER ANTHONY THOMPSON v. DATTENFELD LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1801/1996

Evidence, including contemporaneous adviser notes and affidavits, established the Deed did not express the settlor's true intention and there was no protesting trustee; applying the authorities the court was satisfied the heavy burden for rectification of a voluntary settlement was met and ordered rectification notwithstanding incidental tax consequences.
12 Apr 1995

LUU TAI PHONG v. SUPERINTENDENT HIGH ISLAND DETENTION CENTRE

Citation

LUU TAI PHONG v. SUPERINTENDENT HIGH ISLAND DETENTION CENTRE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/1995

Section 13D(1) authorises detention pending removal and is lawfully exercised where the detainee is held genuinely 'pending removal'; once the Director shows detention is for repatriation and that the purpose is not spent the legal burden is discharged and the court will not require the Director to prove the likelihood a foreign state will accept repatriation; Hardial Singh does not apply to illegal entrants under Part IIIA.