Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Planning permission

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2025

LEE KENG WAI AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL393/2024

The TPAB's Decision was irrational in public law terms because it failed to afford proper weight to and to consider relevant material factors (including prior planning permissions, the advanced stage of Lands Department processing, proximity to the V‑zone/VE and the applicants' efforts and expenditure), such that no reasonable TPAB could have reached the Decision; accordingly the Decision was quashed and mandamus was ordered directing the relevant board to grant the planning permissions on the facts of this case.
28 Jan 2025

鄧素珊對城巿規劃委員會

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL647/2024

The applicant's grounds were either matters of planning judgment not amenable to judicial intervention or legally untenable; alleged defects in documents, disclosure and geotechnical concealment lacked objective basis and did not establish an arguable case with a real prospect of success; applicable statutory and procedural rules were followed and geotechnical or building approval matters lie with technical authorities, therefore leave to apply for judicial review and interim relief were refused.
28 Apr 2014

FAIRBO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

FAIRBO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL35/2012

The Court quashed the Tribunal's findings that the Lanes were government land by surrender by estoppel and that a right of way had been created in favour of the Government because the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant and material evidence (the 1957 assignments conveying parts of the Lanes and the fact that the intended new lot numbers were never implemented) and because the evidence relied upon did not reasonably support a legal right of way as distinct from a mere licence; the technical ground was also wrongly relied on as it was not live. The appropriate remedy is quashing the…
4 Oct 2006

WONG FUNG-LUI v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

Citation

WONG FUNG-LUI v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1/2006

Planning permission and compliance with approved plans are relevant considerations under s5(4)(b)(ii) read with s13 Town Planning Ordinance, but the Town Planning Ordinance does not remove the discretion vested in the Commissioner; the Commissioner was bound to give effect to the Appeal Board's order and could not withhold the licence pending planning permission, so the letters of 7 November and 15 December 2005 were ultra vires and were quashed with a mandamus to implement the Appeal Board order.
13 Jun 2006

CHENG SUK YEE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

Citation

CHENG SUK YEE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2006

The OZP is a guide only under s.13 TPO and does not automatically remove the Commissioner’s discretion under AGCO s.5(4)(b)(ii); the AGC Appeal Board’s unvacated order stands and the Commissioner erred in law by refusing to issue the licence on planning grounds discovered after the Appeal Board decision; absent exceptional circumstances (eg fraud) a statutory tribunal’s decision cannot be reopened by after‑thoughts of a public officer; mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with the Appeal Board order.
26 Jul 2004

SUN HONEST DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

SUN HONEST DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL45/2003

The application for judicial review is dismissed: the tribunal lawfully exercised s.16(1) discretion (including consideration of density and unique local circumstances), properly applied a flexible proximity test under s.16(1)(h), reasonably found gridline 1 to be a street/service lane because third party rights of way could be inferred (and fresh evidence was inadmissible), and the chairman’s unrelated advocacy did not create a real possibility of bias in the circumstances of the statutory ad hoc tribunal scheme.
12 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. WU KOON TAI AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WU KOON TAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA337/1999

Magistrate's factual findings that the site was primarily used for open storage before 5 October 1990 and that storage activity increased materially after 1992 were supported by aerial photographs and witness evidence; material change is a question of actual use not owner labelling, therefore convictions and fines were properly upheld.
13 Jan 1997

R. v. TAI TONG LYCHEE VALLEY CO. LTD.

Citation

R. v. TAI TONG LYCHEE VALLEY CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA775/1996

The enforcement notice was invalid because it failed to specify the alternative of obtaining planning permission and the date for doing so as required by section 23(1); a notice so defective is a nullity and cannot support a conviction, therefore the conviction is quashed and any fine and costs paid must be repaid.
26 Sept 1996

DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER, TAI PO Ex Parte RITA ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. v. R.

Citation

DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER, TAI PO Ex Parte RITA ENTERPRISE CO. LTD. v. R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP606/1996

The District Lands Officer lawfully exercised the statutory discretion under Cap.121 s9 to impose a condition requiring planning permission prior to commencement; that condition was reasonable and consistent with the planning control embodied in Cap.123 s16(1)(d); no legitimate expectation arose from prior practice; therefore the judicial review application failed.
6 Mar 1996

LO CHAI WAN v. APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO CHAI WAN v. APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV150/1995

The proposed appeal was an appeal as of right under article 2(a) because it involved a question respecting property worth well over $500,000 (the validity of planning permission); alternatively, even if not as of right, leave was warranted under article 2(b) because of the large sums and the wide public implications, so conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted.