Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal data (privacy) ordinance

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2024

彭道力對 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of the DIRECTOR OF LEISURE AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1721
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3753/2019

Court accepted that the Department had over-collected certain personal data in breach of PDPO principles but plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the contravention caused the claimed psychiatric injury and economic losses; allegations of misfeasance in public office were unsupported and speculative; claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
19 Sept 2023

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

The defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing necessity for anonymity or for a gagging order because only general or remote risks of doxxing were demonstrated, none of the Concerned Officers had been shown to have been doxxed, statutory and injunctive protections exist (PDPO s64 and the Doxxing Injunction), and the officers' identities are directly relevant to testing credibility and the issues in the case; accordingly the anonymity and gagging orders were refused, the Replacement Summons dismissed as dependent on anonymity, and the defendant was ordered to file unredacted witness s…
15 Sept 2021

CHONG CHI KI PIERRE v. GLORY SKY PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1530/2019

[2021] HKDC 1175
28 Apr 2021

釋照月對個人資料私隱專員公署

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2231/2020

The application is struck out because the applicant lacks standing to seek a declaratory interpretation concerning another person's personal-data rights, the claim is academic/advisory and does not affect the legal rights of the parties before the court, and pursuing the claim in this form is an abuse of the court's process; accordingly the original writ is struck out and costs are awarded to the respondent.
17 Jun 2020

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN OI YAU RIYO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP249/2020

Defendant committed civil contempt by reposting personal data in breach of the Doxxing Injunction; starting point is custodial sentence given seriousness and amplifying effect of social media, but substantial mitigation (good character, one‑off act, prompt removal, full cooperation, remorse, poverty and early admission) justifies a suspended custodial sentence; accordingly impose 28 days imprisonment suspended for 12 months and order a costs contribution of HK$30,000.
2 Apr 2020

SHAM WING KAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2020] HKCA 186
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2017

A magistrate may issue a warrant under section 50(7) to search the digital contents of a mobile phone; the common law power of search incidental to arrest governs searches of digital contents and a warrant should normally be obtained under section 50(7) before searching digital contents, but where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant the police may conduct a warrantless search provided they have a reasonable basis that immediate search is necessary for (i) investigation including procurement or preservation of evidence or (ii) protection of safety; scope must be truly incident…
4 Mar 2020

CHAN SHU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. DR KUNG YAN SUM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA832/2014

The Master was correct: no specific issued 'Statement of Travel Records' existed in the 1st Defendant's possession, custody or power at the date of the Summons; the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance does not convert accessible personal data held by a third party into a discoverable document under Order 24; and even if the Statement were obtainable it was not necessary or proportionate to order discovery because it had limited probative value regarding the disputed Shanghai trip. The appeal is dismissed.
3 Dec 2019

FU SHU WAH & FU SHU WING in their personal capacities as beneficiaries AND in their capacities as the Administrators of THE ESTATE of HO SUNG LAI（何崇禮）, DECEASED v. FU MEI YUK

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2969
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2791/2015

Leave to file and serve portions of the proposed witness statement of Ho Sung Mei was granted only in respect of discrete, relevant paragraphs (paras 1,2,8 excluding the last sentence,9 and17); the remainder of the applications were dismissed because the contested material was collateral, aimed at discrediting witnesses rather than directly relevant to the substantive issues, and any alleged breach of confidentiality or personal data rules did not justify admission of that material or demonstrate perversion of the course of justice.
20 Dec 2018

X v. MELISSA MOWBRAY-D\'ARBELA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1569
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3793/2016

Leave to appeal is refused because the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success: the Board had determined the same substantive issues and its determinations are capable of operating as res judicata/issue estoppel; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate errors giving reasonable prospect of success and engaged in conduct justifying indemnity costs; consequently the costs order nisi was varied and indemnity costs awarded for the Leave Summons.
20 Apr 2018

CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 843
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2745/2016

The application was dismissed because the Chairman/PIC lacks statutory or common law power to compel the HA to disclose patient medical records at the PIC stage; conferring the Council's s22 disclosure powers on the Chairman/PIC would contradict the statutory three-tier scheme and constitute unlawful interference with patients' BORO14 privacy rights; s40(1) Cap 1 and s58(2) PDPO do not provide a basis to compel disclosure prior to referral to the Council; accordingly no order for production or mandatory injunction was justified.