Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hong kong bill of rights ordinance

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2021

SOPLAPUCO MATUTE MANUEL ANDRES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1174
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; the judge applied the correct enhanced standard, examined the Board's decision with anxious scrutiny and reasonably concluded there was no realistic prospect of success in judicial review.
6 Dec 2019

ZORAYDAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL663/2019

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claims were unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no procedural unfairness or legal error were within the Board's evaluative scope and not irrational or unlawful.
24 Jan 2017

MD TANJER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MD TANJER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3804/2011

Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving exceptional circumstances to displace the prima facie entitlement to costs under Order 22 r 20(1); consequently the summons seeking an alternative costs order was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed, with plaintiff's own costs taxed per legal aid regulations.
26 May 2016

HKSAR v. WU WING KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. WU WING KIT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/2014

The Court held that it has the power, founded on the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, to make a temporary order prohibiting publication of these Court of Appeal proceedings to protect the right to a fair trial in ongoing related proceedings (HCCC 83/2014); it was unnecessary to decide the existence or scope of any equivalent common law power and the Court made the prohibitory order until conclusion of the related trial.
23 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA31/2016

The magistrate had good cause to refuse the five applications because the materials lacked sufficient particulars and substance to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the alleged acts did not constitute perverting the course of justice, contempt jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts is limited to contempts in the face of the court and aiding by omission is not an offence known to law; there was no evidence of bias or breach of the Bill of Rights; appeals dismissed.
1 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA620/2012

Magistrate correctly refused to issue private summons because the allegations did not disclose any criminal offence and there was no evidence (eg no indication CCTV captured relevant conduct) or good cause to issue a summons; appellate interference was unjustified, so appeals dismissed.
21 Apr 1995

LEE MIU LING and Another v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LEE MIU LING and Another v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1696/1994

Art.21 requires universal and equal suffrage and one person one vote in principle, but section 13 cannot negate Art.21 now that the Letters Patent require an elected Legislative Council; Letters Patent Art.VII(3) expressly authorises laws creating functional constituencies that confer limited additional voting entitlements, and on that basis the LC(EP)O as amended does not infringe the Bill of Rights; therefore the plaintiffs' declaration is refused and judgment is entered for the defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

SOPLAPUCO MATUTE MANUEL ANDRES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ZORAYDAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MD TANJER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HKSAR v. WU WING KIT AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

LEE MIU LING and Another v. ATTORNEY GENERAL