Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness and reasons

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2024

HOSTFORD DECELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2260/2023

The court dismissed the judicial review: the MPC's partial agreement was sufficiently clear when read in context with the MPC Paper and minutes; there was no unlawful delegation because PlanD's role in drafting detailed OZP amendments followed the statutory scheme; the TPB had taken into account the relevant public comments (including pedestrian safety and the Alternative Proposal) and the weighing of those matters was a planning judgment for the TPB, not susceptible to judicial substitution; no failure to give adequate reasons was proved sufficient to cause substantial prejudice.
19 Oct 2023

WONG CHAU MING v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1626/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court concluded there was no arguable public law error: the applicant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not signing and returning the prescribed declaration by the stipulated deadline, the Secretary's decision to require retirement under s12 PS(A)O was not irrational, the reasons for the decision were adequate when read with the prior correspondence, non-disclosure of internal material caused no substantial prejudice, and relevant section 12 considerations were taken into account.
15 Aug 2023

GAZI MD KHABIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1216/2019

The court refused leave because it found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by the record and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant therefore had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
27 May 2020

RE SUPERB SUMMIT INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL336/2020

Leave was refused because the Company failed to establish a reasonably arguable case; the Listing Committee and Listing Review Committee lawfully cancelled the listing under Rule 6.01A given the Company's failure to satisfy resumption conditions (notably absence of audited financial statements and no timetable), and the procedural complaints did not demonstrate material unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness that could have altered the outcome.
19 Mar 2020

THE TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE DIOCESE OF VICTORIA, HONG KONG v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL26/2012

The Board's decision was quashed because it failed to show that it had given active and adequate consideration to the applicants' comments as required by s 6B(8) of the Town Planning Ordinance, failed to give reasons in respect of those comments (thereby failing to demonstrate consideration), and thereby failed to exercise independent judgment—rendering the Decision Wednesbury unreasonable; remedy: certiorari and remittal for reconsideration.
22 Aug 2019

RE ABBAS SYED MANZAR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 960
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV99/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to demonstrate any error of law or other basis to reverse the Judge, and the newly produced documents did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence.
8 Nov 2012

PROFIT SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS) AND ANOTHER

Citation

PROFIT SUCCESS DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL94/2011

Court allowed judicial review in part: it quashed the Tribunal's Decision because the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons explaining how the multi-factor analysis led it to conclude the two Structures were "building works" rather than plant/machinery, and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal to reconsider that issue; the court also quashed the Decision to allow the Tribunal to determine, on evidence, whether the necessary approval and consent under s14(1) of the Buildings Ordinance had been given at the time the s24(1) Order was issued; other grounds (misreading Morrison, alleged factual…
24 Jan 2002

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG v. THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Citation

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG v. THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL471/2001

The Registrar lawfully exercised his discretion under Trade Mark Rules r.91 by considering relevant factors, concluding the opponent had an arguable case and that there was no bad faith or abuse of process; administrative filing errors on Form S75 did not amount to oppressive conduct or taint the exercise of discretion; the application for certiorari is dismissed.
30 Dec 1999

MOHAMMAD AKRAM v. THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

MOHAMMAD AKRAM v. THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/1997

The deportation order was declared null and void because the Secretary for Security expressly relied upon an erroneous maximum penalty (10 years) as material to the decision, and there was insufficient evidence to show that this error was irrelevant or immaterial; additionally the Secretary failed to disclose consultations and relevant material so the decision was vitiated. Subsequent undocumented or unsigned 'second comments' and Council decisions did not cure the original defects. The Applicant's claim that his life would be endangered was adequately investigated and rejected on the facts,…
28 Sept 1992

RE CHAN HEUNG MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

RE CHAN HEUNG MUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1523/1992

The court held the Deputy Director lawfully re-assessed the s.13 applications, the disclosures and decision-making process were sufficient and not a ritual incantation, hearsay relied upon was admissible for administrative evaluation, and the decisions were not irrational or perverse; accordingly the judicial review motions were dismissed.