Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrelevant consideration

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2020

HONG KONG RESORT CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL645/2017

The Board unlawfully relied on the Unused GFA (an implementation/lease‑related consideration) and thereby took into account an irrelevant consideration and omitted relevant planning factors; it also failed its Tameside duty to ask the right questions and misapplied the undesirable‑precedent concept without adequate factual basis. For these errors the Decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
20 Apr 2018

JONNEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 836
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL130/2015

The court accepted that the applicant had pursued multiple unsuccessful grounds that substantially increased the time and cost of the litigation and that, applying established principles on proportionality and the post-CJR approach to costs, a variation of the costs award was justified to reflect time and costs attributable to those unsuccessful grounds.
23 May 2007

AU ON AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

AU ON AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL119/2006

The Board did not unlawfully deny representation because s.11 requires the Board's consent at the hearing and the applicants never properly sought such consent; the Board acted reasonably in limiting a non‑lawyer intervenor who lacked personal knowledge and risked hearsay; disclosure of the W5 tenancy was relevant to the applicants' mitigation and livelihood claims and did not produce unfair prejudice; accordingly the Board reasonably applied the departmental Policy and dismissal of the appeals was lawful.
1 Mar 2000

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH KAI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, TEXACO ROAD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH KAI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, TEXACO ROAD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL120/1999

The resumption order was lawful: the subsequent contractor report did not establish that demolition and hence resumption were no longer required at the time of the June 1999 decision; there was no evidence redevelopment potential materially influenced the authorised scheme or the delegate's resumption decision; and the statutory objection procedure, not a separate right to post-authorisation representations, governed procedural fairness, so the application to quash was dismissed.
23 Mar 1990

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORIY

Citation

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORIY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2111/1989

Where the decision-maker's uncontradicted evidence shows the alleged irrelevant factor was merely disclosed as background and there is no evidence it influenced the decision, court will not infer improper consideration; accordingly the notice to quit stood and judicial review failed.
11 Dec 1989

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2111/1989

Section 19(3) of the Housing Ordinance does not oust the court's ordinary supervisory jurisdiction; where a decision to terminate a tenancy is tainted by a jurisdictional error (such as reliance on an irrelevant consideration) it is susceptible to judicial review and may be nullified despite statutory finality language.

Hong Kong Case Law

HONG KONG RESORT CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

JONNEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

AU ON AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH KAI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, TEXACO ROAD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORIY

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY