Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freedom of movement

Legal area

Court

13 May 2021

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAM FAI (張錦輝)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC46/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonably arguable constitutional challenge: the applicant admitted the offence elements and validity of cancellation, failed to disclose the grounds for cancellation, did not pursue statutory appeals or judicial review, and never sought permission to enter the school — these threshold defects precluded a proportionate analysis and made the challenge unarguable.
4 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴張錦輝

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 23
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA90/2019

The application for a certificate was refused because the court concluded the contested legal points were previously considered and rejected in the judge's earlier judgment, the applicant merely re‑argued those conclusions without raising a new, reasonably arguable point of law of broad and general public importance, and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for a certificate under s32(2) CFAO; the impugned provisions are not shown to be unconstitutional on the material before the court.
19 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP575/2019

The application to vary the travel restriction was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that overseas attendance was necessary given the availability of instantaneous communication, the award invitation post‑dated the magistrate's refusal, and there remained a real, non‑fanciful risk of absconding; public interest considerations therefore outweighed the applicant's freedom of movement.
3 Dec 2008

REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA626/2008

The pre-judgment prohibition order became academic upon entry of interlocutory judgment and was discharged; section 21B(1) of the High Court Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance; and there was probable cause to believe the 2nd defendant would leave Hong Kong if not prohibited given his lack of ties, delocalised residences and the interlocutory judgment with likely substantial damages, so the post-judgment prohibition order should be maintained.
31 Oct 2006

LAU KWOK FAI BERNARD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWOK FAI BERNARD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV93/2005

The Court dismissed the appeal: it refused to admit the late new ground challenging absence of PSC consultation because it was extremely late and required new evidence; the attack on the interdiction condition was treated as academic because it had been overtaken by the subsequent dismissal decision and no good reason existed to decide the point. The underlying decisions of the judge below were upheld and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
30 Jul 2002

GURUNG KESH BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GURUNG KESH BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2001

Section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance cannot be applied so as to cause the automatic expiry of permission to stay on departure in respect of a non-permanent resident whose limit of stay has not yet expired because doing so would abrogate the Basic Law art.31 freedom to travel and to re-enter; such a non-permanent resident retains the previous permission on return and is entitled to land without a fresh grant; s.11(10) remains valid as applied to others but not so as to extinguish the rights of this class of resident.
25 Nov 1997

THE ASSOCIATION OF EXPATRIATE CIVIL SERVANTS OF HONG KONG v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE and Another

Citation

THE ASSOCIATION OF EXPATRIATE CIVIL SERVANTS OF HONG KONG v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL90/1997

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted in part: A.E.C.S. has an arguable case challenging the promulgation of the Executive Order and Regulation and their retrospectivity and has standing potentially; leave was granted to challenge section 17 (restriction on leaving HKSAR) and the provisions barring legal representation in disciplinary hearings (reg.8(3)(a) and schedule paras) but only on the ground they are incompatible with Bill of Rights Art.21(c); leave was refused for challenges to ss.11,15,16 and reg.14 (double jeopardy/deterrent salary withdrawal), for s.20 (delegation/limiting…
19 Jul 1989

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF INDIA v. MURJANI INDUSTRIES (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/1989

Conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted because the principal question—whether a prohibition order under section 21B can be made more than once in the same action or only once to the maximum permitted—was held to be a question of great general and public importance within Rule 2(b); issues of efficacy and compensation were acknowledged but left unresolved.
2 Dec 1968

CHU YUNG CHUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT HONG KONG.

Citation

CHU YUNG CHUEN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT HONG KONG.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP244/1968

Passport issuance is an exercise of the Royal prerogative that does not give rise to a legal right enforceable by mandamus; because the decision is not judicial and no enforceable right existed, the court must dismiss the application to compel issuance of a passport.
COLUMBIA EXPORT PACKERS (HK) LTD v. ALEXANDER BUCHANAN MC CULLOCH

Citation

COLUMBIA EXPORT PACKERS (HK) LTD v. ALEXANDER BUCHANAN MC CULLOCH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8060/1975

Even accepting the District Court has ancillary jurisdiction under section 48, an injunction restraining a judgment debtor from leaving Hong Kong to secure payment is an inappropriate and novel mode of enforcement, entails serious administrative and humanitarian consequences, and improperly infringes fundamental freedom of movement; such power, if to be conferred, is a matter for legislation. Accordingly the ex parte application for the injunction is dismissed.