Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary power

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2014

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BAYCREST v. CHOI CHI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BAYCREST v. CHOI CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4468/2013

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the issues raised involved genuine complexity and contested factual and legal questions (including whether the 2003 resolution unlawfully fettered a discretion), making the matter unsuitable for summary disposal under Order 14; the proper course was a trial.
28 Mar 2012

GHULAM RBANI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GHULAM RBANI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP308/2012

The court granted leave to file and serve the 2nd Supplemental Respondent's Notice because the proposed contention has a real prospect of success and the issue may have wider relevance warranting an authoritative Hong Kong decision; consequentially the extension of time was justified and costs of the application were ordered on an nisi basis.
16 Feb 2011

LIN KAI YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION

Citation

LIN KAI YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL134/2009

Regulation 4(2) and 4(2A) prescribe mandatory, objective requirements which applicants must satisfy before the Director may exercise any discretion under Regulation 4(1); the applicant failed those requirements and consequently the Director lawfully refused to grant an LKL and lawfully issued an Exhibition Licence; the refusal was not irrational or an unlawful misuse of discretion.
7 Jun 2004

LI CHI KEUNG, ALVIN v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI CHI KEUNG, ALVIN v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2004

The Director and the Secretary acted within the lawful parameters of the HFS and the Civil Service Regulations: disposal of the HFS property without acquisition of a replacement within the prescribed six-month break-in period (absent exceptional prior approval) resulted in forfeiture and deemed exit from the scheme; the decision-makers lawfully exercised their discretion and the differential treatment vis-à-vis other housing benefits did not amount to unlawful discrimination; application dismissed.
29 May 2000

BRAR IQBAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

BRAR IQBAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL101/2000

The Director's refusal was lawful and rational because the sponsor could not financially support the applicant and the evidence showed the applicant's principal purpose of residence was to work; there was no illegal or irrational exercise of discretion warranting judicial review.
11 Sept 1997

MOK KWONG CHING v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE and Another

Citation

MOK KWONG CHING v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4100/1996

The court held that 'has not joined the HPS' excludes anyone who has ever joined the HPS; receipt of HPS allowance in 1991 meant the applicant had joined and was therefore ineligible for HFS; although the Director initially indicated a policy-based refusal, subsequent consideration was adequate and the refusal to grant exceptional approval was not Wednesbury-unreasonable; application dismissed.
26 Sept 1996

DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER, TAI PO Ex Parte RITA ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. v. R.

Citation

DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER, TAI PO Ex Parte RITA ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. v. R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP606/1996

The District Lands Officer lawfully exercised the statutory discretion under Cap.121 s9 to impose a condition requiring planning permission prior to commencement; that condition was reasonable and consistent with the planning control embodied in Cap.123 s16(1)(d); no legitimate expectation arose from prior practice; therefore the judicial review application failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BAYCREST v. CHOI CHI WING AND ANOTHER

GHULAM RBANI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

LIN KAI YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION

LI CHI KEUNG, ALVIN v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER

BRAR IQBAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

MOK KWONG CHING v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE and Another

DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER, TAI PO Ex Parte RITA ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. v. R.