Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Licensing discretion

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2016

HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL

Citation

HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2015

The Court held that the CE in Council lawfully construed and implemented the Government's broadcasting policy by adopting a gradual and orderly approach; that approach did not amount to a misinterpretation of the policy nor to a breach of substantive legitimate expectation; public interest (including market sustainability) is a relevant and sufficiently certain consideration under section 10(1) of the Broadcasting Ordinance; there was no common law duty to re-consult the Authority on the matters challenged; and the CE in Council's decision fell within the permissible margin of appreciation an…
10 Sept 2008

RE REGAL RIVERSIDE HOTEL LTD

Citation

RE REGAL RIVERSIDE HOTEL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL94/2008

The Demerit Scheme does not oust the statutory discretion conferred by PHMSO s.125(1)(b); the MSAB majority lawfully exercised that discretion in view of the seriousness of the food poisoning, deterrence and public health objectives, and its decision to impose a 5‑day suspension was not unreasonable, disproportionate or ultra vires; consequently the proposed grounds for leave were unarguable.
20 Dec 1990

WONG KWOK HUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WONG KWOK HUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3064/1989

The letter of 3 February 1988 did not, as a matter of construction, constitute a representation that a licence would be granted if the stated conditions were met because the Commissioner retained a statutory discretion under Regulation 7(1)(h) to refuse in the public interest; consequently the plaintiff could not establish the necessary elements of negligent misstatement under Hedley Byrne and the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.
31 Jul 1985

RE WONG KOON KAU

Citation

RE WONG KOON KAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1523/1985

The court held that the licensing authority was not obliged to afford an oral hearing or further opportunity to elaborate once a statement was fairly taken, and that the matters relied upon by the authority were relevant to the statutory criteria in section 6(3); accordingly the refusal was lawful and the application for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed.
27 Jan 1981

RE GOLDEN WALL SHIRTS FACTORY LTD

Citation

RE GOLDEN WALL SHIRTS FACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP999/1980

By majority (Zimmern and Barker JJ.) the Director lawfully may formulate and apply a quota administration policy under s.3(1) and related regulations, and may require surrender of quota and refuse export licences as administrative, compensatory measures (not punitive) to protect Hong Kong's quota obligations provided the discretion is exercised bona fide, fairly and with opportunity to make representations; the applicants were given such opportunity and the application is dismissed. Dissent (Rhind J.) held the decision was nullity for prejudgment and lack of fresh opportunity to refute allega…
31 Jul 1976

CHAN YAT-SAN AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHAN YAT-SAN AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP266/1976

The applicants failed to establish that the Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction, was influenced by irrelevant considerations, or acted in bad faith; the material before the Court did not raise substantial and disquieting doubts sufficient to warrant certiorari or mandamus, therefore the applications are refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL

RE REGAL RIVERSIDE HOTEL LTD

WONG KWOK HUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

RE WONG KOON KAU

RE GOLDEN WALL SHIRTS FACTORY LTD

CHAN YAT-SAN AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL