Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness and bias

Legal area

Court

2 May 2023

BENVER COMPANY LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS ORDINANCE)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL217/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the impugned directions (aerial photos and proposed site inspection) were intermediate/procedural, lacked the necessary exceptional utility to justify intervention, the site inspection direction was not extant (rescinded/moot) and the BAT's powers under sections 49, 50 and 53 permit reception of evidence and inspections for determining appeals including at preliminary hearings; there was no reasonably arguable case of illegality, bias or constitutional incompatibility.
13 Nov 2019

SHERPA MINGMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1274
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP157/2019

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the short delay was insufficiently explained and, crucially, the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success: the judge had lawfully decided the leave application on paper in accordance with the Rules, there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and no error of law or omission that would justify granting extension of time to appeal.
19 Mar 2019

RE RIZWAN RAJA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 283
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2018

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) Cap.484, his complaints did not present reasonably arguable grounds of appeal, and no basis existed to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
13 Nov 2014

ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/2012

The court held that although the Board possessed power to impose area-wide height controls and to amend OZPs by s7, the specific 130mPD building height restriction, the two 10m non-building area strips and the 20m central building gap imposed on the Kai Tak Mansion site were irrational/arbitrary on the evidence before the Board (principally because the Board had not demonstrated the 130mPD permitted full use of plot ratio/GFA and the AVA/visual evidence did not justify the specific NBA and BG dimensions); additionally the decision-making process was procedurally unfair because some Board memb…
31 May 2007

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV315/2006

The Court held the OAT's classification function is administrative not criminal; the OAT lawfully conducted a post-publication classification, could consider contextual factors (including invasion of privacy and guidance from film censorship criteria) and was not required to apply criminal burdens or exclude hearsay; the OAT did not exceed jurisdiction by including the contents page and its critical findings were reasonable; any minor error (re commercial exploitation) was not outcome-determinative; consequently the appeals were dismissed and costs ordered.
30 Jun 2006

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL5/2006

Leave to apply for judicial review refused in all respects because the applicant failed to show prima facie arguable grounds for judicial review on multiple complaints, suffered inexcusable delay contrary to Order 53 r.4(1), many issues were appropriately dealt with or should be dealt with in criminal or disciplinary proceedings (or by writ for tort claims), and the impugned prison restrictions and decisions fell within the lawful discretionary regulatory framework governing prisons and custody.
4 Sept 2002

CASTRO EVELYN DIMALANTA v. WONG CHOI WAH

Citation

CASTRO EVELYN DIMALANTA v. WONG CHOI WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA9/2002

The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found the Presiding Officer reasonably preferred the Defendant's evidence on payment, provision of food and leave; the alleged errors were either innocent or immaterial and did not demonstrate bias or warrant upsetting the Tribunal's factual findings.
30 Jan 2002

WONG SIN HUA FELIX v. THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL

Citation

WONG SIN HUA FELIX v. THE INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2001

The Court held that on the facts of this inquiry the private consultations and procedural irregularities so infected the process that the evidence adduced in public hearings could not be treated as 'pristine' raw data for the purpose of determining whether section 26A(5)(c) or (d) applied; the Tribunal's ruling permitting use of that evidence was quashed by certiorari and the costs application must be determined by a differently constituted tribunal (order nisi for costs in favour of applicant); the finding rests on the inseparability of evaluation and evidence where the tribunal's misconduct…
7 Jan 2002

CHENG CHUI PING v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR

Citation

CHENG CHUI PING v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1366/2001

Chief Executive was not required to resolve contested questions of foreign law (US statutes of limitations) before ordering surrender; the arrangements and Ordinance do not mandate refusal where foreign time limits may bar prosecution, separate DOJ divisions advising the Executive and representing the requesting state did not create a real risk of bias, and there was no obligation in the circumstances to provide reasons for the executive surrender decision; accordingly the judicial review challenge failed.