Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal aid appeal

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

OMAR JORA SISI v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT (MASTER ROY YU)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3771
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1739/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the applicant demonstrated reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Registrar and other decision‑makers had not properly grappled with fundamental jurisdictional and merits issues arising from the CSO liquidation regime (including s45) and the validity/revocation of the 1979 nomination; those defects could render prior decisions perverse or irrational and justified remitting the matter for reconsideration; delay was excused and extension of time granted.
23 Jul 2025

譚杰文對 DORIS TO、法律援助署署長 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1483/2025

The application for permission was refused because Form 86 failed to state the relief sought or the grounds as required by Order 53 rule 3(2)(a), and the supporting affidavit contained only vague, unparticularised allegations so the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable arguable case as required for leave (per Po Fun Chan).
16 Aug 2024

PANG CHUI PING v. REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1152/2022

The Master's decision was quashed and, because the Master erred on all decisive grounds which the Director conceded and the circumstances were exceptional such that a properly directed decision-maker would have had only one legally open outcome, the court ordered mandamus directing issuance of a legal aid certificate to the Applicant.
24 Apr 2024

LEUNG CHEUK LIM v. 莊因東先生, JP 法律援助署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL302/2024

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the Director's decision was subject to an available and exercised statutory appeal, rendering the DLA decision not amenable to judicial review, and the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds with realistic prospects of success against the Master’s decision.
28 Mar 2024

王寬裕 v. MATTEW LEUNG, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL305/2024

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds against Master Leung's dismissal of the legal aid appeal; the court's role is limited to reviewing legality, rationality and fairness of the process and it will not act as a further merits appeal or grant legal aid.
17 Nov 2022

吳玫蓉 v. 王淑芬 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1182/2022

Both leave applications were dismissed: claims about the insurance policies are private law matters unsuitable for judicial review, and the challenge to the Director's refusal of legal aid (LAA Decision) was out of time and, in any event, lacked reasonably arguable public law grounds.
4 Aug 2021

LAW WAN TUNG v. THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL180/2021

The Master concluded the Recorder was plainly right to hold that ES had standing and to discharge the charging order on grounds of material non-disclosure; the Applicant's intended appeal against the Discharge Order had no realistic prospect of success and therefore the legal aid appeal was properly dismissed, warranting refusal of leave for judicial review.
11 Mar 2021

RE LEUNG KIT HING DORIS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP170/2020

The Court held that CACV 115/2020 was incompetent because required leave under s63 District Court Ordinance was not obtained, that Ms Leung lacks locus standi to participate in DCCJ 4497/2017 making her applications incurably defective, and therefore the notices and summonses were struck out or dismissed; CAMPs 124, 170 and 178/2020 were dismissed or refused; and an interim restraint was justified to prevent continued abuse while submissions on formal RPO/RAO are obtained.
29 May 2019

CHEUNG, JOSEPH WAI LEUK v. CHAN KWOK PING (Chinese name 陳國平)AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI264/2012

The application for a further adjournment was refused because objective medical evidence and the court's observation showed the plaintiff was coherent and understood court procedure; stress alone did not render him practically unfit to attend; the plaintiff had demonstrated ability and intention to litigate (including pursuing his legal aid appeal); and on balancing prejudice to the defendants and the need to avoid unnecessary delay the court exercised its discretion to refuse adjournment and proceeded with the checklist review.
8 Jan 2016

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHUEN, DECEASED v. FORESTSIDE LTD

Citation

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHUEN, DECEASED v. FORESTSIDE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2055/2011

Adjournment refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing legal aid or alternative representation despite having adequate notice and time; permitting an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the defendant and cause unnecessary delay.