Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Discretionary jurisdiction

  • 10 Jan 2022

    EJAZ ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 28
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP214/2021

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484.

    • Leave to appeal to court of final appeal
    • Non-refoulement
    • Public importance test
    • Discretionary jurisdiction

  • 7 Jan 2021

    RE POINEM

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 28
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV48/2020

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of appeal or any specific error in the judgments below and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Judicial review
    • Discretionary jurisdiction
    • Public importance

  • 22 Feb 2016

    RE ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)

    Citation
    RE ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW337/2015

    The petition demonstrated a sufficient connection with Hong Kong and established insolvency warranting the court's exercise of its discretionary winding‑up jurisdiction; historical occurrences capable of constituting a substantial connection are sufficient provided there is a sufficient connection at the time of hearing.

    • Winding up on grounds of insolvency
    • Connection with forum
    • Discretionary jurisdiction
    • Costs orders

  • 25 Jun 1999

    LAU KONG YUNG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

    Citation
    LAU KONG YUNG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV108/1999

    The Court of Appeal found the question to be one of great general and public importance under section 22(b) and therefore granted leave to submit the question to the Court of Final Appeal; it was unnecessary to decide any further issues.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Public importance
    • Referral to court of final appeal
    • Discretionary jurisdiction

  • 23 Oct 1998

    N v. O

    Citation
    N v. O
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP4204/1998

    The court found the child was not habitually resident in Luxembourg immediately before the alleged mid‑July retention because the mother had effectively settled the child first in the United States (recognised by Luxembourg interim orders) and then Hong Kong; therefore mandatory return under the Hague Convention failed and, exercising its discretion in the child’s best interests, the court declined to order return, retained wardship and directed custody proceedings in Hong Kong.

    • Habitual residence
    • Wrongful retention
    • Child welfare paramountcy
    • Discretionary jurisdiction
    • Forum conveniens
    • Comity