Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prescribed by law

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2025

DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. LPK

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAD26/2022

The court found that family life under BOR14 and BOR19 was not engaged among the siblings because there were no demonstrable interests, commitments or close personal ties between them; BOR14 privacy rights were nonetheless engaged by the separation but the restriction was justified and proportionate because adoption and placement decisions were made in each child's best interests given parental abandonment, practical placement constraints, clinical assessments and risk of psychological harm from repeated separations; consequently freeing orders for the 6th and 7th children and adoption orders…
4 Jul 2025

CHEN WENCAN AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 595
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2023

The Court held that the RN (Public Interest) Regime (ss 204 and 205 exercised on the basis of s 207(e) of the SFO) satisfies the prescribed by law requirement and is proportionate to legitimate protective aims (preservation of assets, protection of investors, public interest), therefore it does not unlawfully interfere with property rights under BL 6 and BL 105 and the appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
15 Aug 2023

TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 959
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is granted because the questions raised are of sufficient public importance, are not precluded by the academic status of the proceedings between parties, and the issues (ultra vires, prescribed by law, proportionality, procedural fairness and the correctness of Interush) are appropriately determined by the Court of Final Appeal to provide authoritative guidance.
21 Mar 2023

CHEN WENCAN AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL366/2022

The application for leave is dismissed because the issues raised were considered and rejected in Tam Sze Leung (RN); the RN Regime is sufficiently "prescribed by law" in context, the proportionality assessment favours the regime given the SFAT and other procedural safeguards, and the applicants' arguments merely re‑argue settled points with no realistic prospect of success.
26 Sept 2022

TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL177/2022

Sections 204 and 205 of the SFO, when invoked pursuant to section 207(e), meet the Basic Law 'prescribed by law' requirement and are a proportionate means of pursuing legitimate regulatory objectives; the RN Regime is constitutional as drafted and applied in form; the Applicants' systemic challenge fails and the application is dismissed.
23 Mar 2022

TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2021

The Court held that the No Consent Regime as operated by the Commissioner was unlawful: it was ultra vires sections 25 and 25A OSCO, not otherwise prescribed by law, and disproportionately interfered with constitutional rights (Basic Law arts 6 and 105). The Court granted a declaration to that effect, permitted amendment of the originating Form 86, and ordered the Commissioner to pay the Applicants' costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for three Counsel (with the costs of the relief-and-costs argument limited to a certificate for two Counsel).
25 Jan 2022

TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2021

Because no final order for specific relief has been made and the hearing on appropriate relief, consequential matters and costs has been adjourned for further submissions, the time for filing any notice of appeal has not begun; accordingly an extension of time to appeal is unnecessary and no order for extension is made (but the court would have granted an extension to 28 days after final orders if it had been necessary).
30 Dec 2021

TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2021

The Court held that as operated the No Consent Regime (use of LNCs to effect informal asset freezes) exceeded the statutory scope of sections 25 and 25A OSCO (ultra vires), was not "prescribed by law" due to lack of adequate legal certainty and safeguards, and constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to use property; consequently those systemic aspects of the regime are unlawful, while individual procedural fairness and fair hearing grounds and the fact‑specific challenge failed on the evidence.
18 May 2021

CHEE FEI MING substituted by PUN LIN FA v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 16
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV42/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because it was not reasonably arguable that s.104A(1)(b) excludes attended demonstrators' banners; the Court of Appeal's purposive construction that the provision targets displays with a degree of permanence and habitual regularity is sensible and captures the daily Falun Gong banners; the proportionality challenge was not reasonably arguable on the material before the court because the prior‑approval requirement does not inevitably infringe protected rights and the alleged risk of unfettered content screening was not established absent an actual application and ev…
21 Dec 2020

KWOK WING HANG AND 23 OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV6/2020

The Court held the ERO is constitutional: it authorises the CEIC to make emergency subsidiary legislation without impermissibly delegating general legislative power because such delegation is appropriately limited by the ERO's internal constraints, judicial review, LegCo negative vetting and Basic Law safeguards. Applying the four-step proportionality test, the Court held the PFCR's prohibitions in section 3 (including 3(1)(b),(c),(d)) are rationally connected to legitimate aims and are no more than reasonably necessary and strike a fair balance, whereas section 5 had been previously held dis…