Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdictional delineation

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2021

LEUNG CHUNG HANG, SIXTUS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 871
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2019

The Court held the Ordinance, including s.6 deeming the Mainland Port Area as outside Hong Kong for purposes of applying Mainland law (except reserved matters), is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law: the arrangement falls within HKSAR executive and legislative autonomy, is confined in purpose and scope, does not alter administrative boundaries, and the NPCSC Decision confirming conformity is a highly persuasive constitutional factor; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
11 Jun 2021

LUI CHI HANG, HENDRICK v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 871
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2019

Applying a purposive construction of the Basic Law and treating it as a living instrument, the Court held that the Ordinance (Cap. 632), including the deeming provision in section 6, does not contravene BL 18 or BL 19 because it is a narrow, necessary measure implementing a co-operation arrangement approved through the three-step process, it does not alter the HKSAR territorial boundary, preserves reserved matters for Hong Kong jurisdiction, and is consistent with the HKSAR's high degree of autonomy; the NPCSC Decision is a highly persuasive interpretative factor.
14 Aug 2018

梁頌恆 v. 立法會主席

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1160/2018

Interim relief was refused because on the balance of convenience the public interest and substantial irreversible harm to Hong Kong (including very large monthly financial losses and wider societal effects) from delaying commencement outweighed the applicants' asserted harms which were hypothetical and not personal; there were no exceptional circumstances, an early substantive hearing was fixed, and one application named an improper respondent.
27 Sept 2017

張德榮 v. 林鄭月娥行會主席 AND OTHERS

Citation

張德榮 v. 林鄭月娥行會主席 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL460/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the CEIC Decision is an intermediate, preparatory decision within a Three-step Process and not of a decisive nature affecting the applicants' rights; the relevant legal and factual events (Co-operation Arrangement, NPCSC decision, local legislation) have not occurred and are material to any constitutional assessment; no exceptional circumstances justified early intervention.

Hong Kong Case Law

LEUNG CHUNG HANG, SIXTUS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

LUI CHI HANG, HENDRICK v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

梁頌恆 v. 立法會主席

張德榮 v. 林鄭月娥行會主席 AND OTHERS