Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oath-taking

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIU CHUNG YIM

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3378/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the court had properly exercised its wide discretion on costs by considering the particular facts of Mr Yiu's case (including the milder alteration of the oath, his understandable mistaken belief and public interest considerations) and therefore the Decision that no order as to costs should be made for Mr Yiu was not plainly wrong or legally flawed.
13 Jun 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 645
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2017

The Court refused leave because the questions raised were either settled by binding authority or academic in the circumstances, the NPCSC Interpretation did not supplement BL104 and stated what Hong Kong law had always been, and prior refusals to admit the Mainland expert report and to grant leave rendered further attempts an abuse of process; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded.
4 Oct 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIU CHUNG YIM

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3378/2016

Although costs normally follow the event, the court concluded it would be unjust to require Mr Yiu to bear the costs because he had a reasonable basis, grounded in past Legislative Council practices and the President's Ruling, to believe his oath would be accepted or he would be allowed to retake it, and the relevant Interpretation post-dated his conduct; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to relieve him from liability for those costs.
4 Oct 2018

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL226/2016

The court held that although the general rule is that costs follow the event, fairness required departing from that rule because Mr Yiu had a reasonable basis to believe, given past practices and rulings and the fact the Interpretation post-dated the conduct, that his conduct would be permitted or he would be allowed to retake the oath; accordingly it would be unjust to require him to bear the costs of defending the actions.
1 Sept 2017

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV10/2017

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the questions, though of public importance, were not reasonably arguable; the courts are obliged to determine whether BL104 and the Ordinance were complied with, the factual findings that the applicants declined or neglected to take the LegCo oath were unassailable, section 21 operates to disqualify in those circumstances, and the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and does not oust judicial review in this context.
1 Sept 2017

YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YAU WAI CHING v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV8/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the issues raised are of public importance, there is no reasonably arguable case to disturb the findings below: the courts are obliged to determine compliance with BL104; the factual findings that the applicants declined or neglected to take the oath are unassailable; section 21 operates to disqualify in those circumstances; and the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and consistent with that outcome.
1 Sept 2017

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV9/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions, though of public importance, were not reasonably arguable such as to affect the judgments below; the courts are duty-bound to determine compliance with Basic Law Article 104 and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, the NPCSC Interpretation is binding and supports that where a member has declined or neglected to take the LegCo oath disqualification under section 21 is the automatic consequence, and the non-intervention principle does not preclude judicial review in these constitutional circumstances.
14 Jul 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NATHAN LAW KWUN CHUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NATHAN LAW KWUN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3379/2016

On objective assessment the four members-elect failed to comply with one or more constitutional legal requirements (Exact Form and Content, Solemnity, Substantive Belief) when purportedly taking the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016; therefore each is treated as having declined or neglected to take the oath and is disqualified from assuming or entering office from that date; administrators' decisions allowing retakes were legally incorrect and are subject to quashing; assessment is objective on balance of probabilities requiring cogent evidence.
14 Jul 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3382/2016

Applying the objective legal test informed by Basic Law Article 104, the NPCSC Interpretation and the ODO, the court held that each of the four members-elect failed to comply with one or more mandatory requirements (exact form/content, solemnity and/or substantive belief) when taking the LegCo oath on 12 October 2016; their oath‑takings were invalid, they declined or neglected to take the oath in law and were disqualified from assuming office from 12 October 2016. The Clerk's and President's decisions to accept or allow retakes as to these individuals were legally erroneous and were quashed.…
14 Jul 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL224/2016

Applying an objective test, the court held that on 12 October 2016 each of the four members-elect (Nathan Law, Leung Kwok Hung, Lau Siu Lai and Yiu Chung Yim) failed to comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements (exact form, solemnity and sincere belief) for taking the LegCo Oath—by adding words, delivering the oath in a deliberately disruptive or incoherent manner, or otherwise altering the oath—thereby declining or neglecting to take the oath and becoming disqualified from assuming office with effect from 12 October 2016; the Clerk's and President's rulings accepting or allow…