12 Jun 1997
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked sufficient interest and, in any event, no arguable unlawfulness was shown; the acts complained of occurred outside Hong Kong and were political in nature and therefore non‑justiciable, so the application was bound to fail.
3 Jun 1991
Leave to appeal was refused because the habeas corpus issues fall outside the Order in Council's remit for leave and because paragraph 2(2) of the Hong Kong Letters Patent 1991( No.1) operates retrospectively to prevent challenges to prior magistrate appointments, rendering the applicants' civil appeals academic and not warranting exercise of discretion under rule 2(b).
6 Dec 1988
Sections 37D and 37J of the Immigration Ordinance are intra vires because legislation creating liability for arranging/assisting passage of unauthorised entrants who come to Hong Kong bears a sufficient and proper connection to the peace, order and good government of Hong Kong; Macleod was a decision about statutory construction and does not establish a general doctrine invalidating such laws, and Croft v Dunphy and related authorities support that extra-territorial effect is not fatal where a substantial territorial connection exists.
28 Nov 1980
The Court held that Article XVI of the Hong Kong Letters Patent empowers the Governor to suspend public officers and that such suspension can include suspension without pay; Colonial Regulations are subordinate instructions binding the Governor but do not form part of officers' contracts; Government Regulations (including C.S.Rs) are incorporated into contracts of service and, given the express contractual reservation permitting unilateral variation, C.S.R.611 validly became a term of service on promulgation and did not conflict with Colonial Regulations; consequently the appellants' declarat…
12 Mar 1980
The court held that under the Letters Patent and royal prerogative in Hong Kong the Crown (and Governor) has the power to suspend public officers at pleasure and that this power includes suspension without pay; the Civil Service Regulations do not amount to contractual constraints binding the Crown to prevent such suspensions; accordingly the suspensions were lawful and the plaintiffs' claims fail.