Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness in administrative decision-making

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2025

ANWAR TARIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1400/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable and particularised grounds enjoying a realistic prospect of success; the substantive findings of the TCAB/NRCPO on credibility and risk fall within the province of the primary decision-makers and disclosed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness sufficient to vitiate the decision; the Director's earlier decisions were not susceptible to judicial review in the absence of exceptional circumstances while the appeal/petition was pending.
26 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCA 614
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2024

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific error in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b), relied on general and unsupported assertions, and failed to properly explain or justify fresh documents which were the same as materials previously considered; therefore there was no basis to grant leave either under the public-importance limb or the otherwise limb.
6 Aug 2025

鄧慧賢對上訴委員會（房屋）及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL953/2025

Permission to apply for judicial review refused. The court held the Housing Authority and the Appeal Panel lawfully and reasonably considered the totality of evidence (visit records, prolonged zero water/electricity readings, payment patterns and the applicant's inconsistent testimony). No legal duty existed to conduct further proactive investigations or additional entry inspections; the applicant failed to establish an arguable ground of legal error or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
15 Aug 1997

GOLDWYN CAPITAL LTD v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

GOLDWYN CAPITAL LTD v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL59/1997

The Commission lawfully declined to process a takeover announcement naming a registered investment adviser where it had justifiable doubts about that adviser's fitness and properness; registration does not bar the Commission from acting on such doubts without first invoking section 56 disciplinary proceedings, and the Commission's subsequent invitation to Goldwyn to allay concerns cured any initial omission so the decision was not procedurally unfair; the judicial review is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

ANWAR TARIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

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

鄧慧賢 對 上訴委員會（房屋）及另一人

GOLDWYN CAPITAL LTD v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

鄧慧賢對上訴委員會（房屋）及另一人