Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Property rights

  • 10 Apr 2024

    TAM SZE LEUNG AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFA 8
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV7/2023

    The Court held the police practice of communicating suspicions to banks and issuing Letters of No Consent is intra vires as lawful investigative measures under the Police Force Ordinance and common law; banks, acting under statutory and regulatory duties (OSCO/AMLO/HKMA), effect any disablement of accounts and are not agents compellingly controlled by the police; the asserted constitutional rights (property, privacy, access to courts/justice) were not engaged on the facts because the police did not legally freeze property and, if rights had been engaged, the measures were prescribed by law an…

  • 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.

  • 17 Jan 2019

    INTERUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 70
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV230/2015

    The Court held that section 25 OSCO does not itself engage Articles 6/105 property rights but the practical effect of the s 25A consent/no‑consent regime engages property rights; however, the consent regime as applied in this case is not unconstitutional: the statutory scheme and Police procedures (including internal Manual safeguards and common law controls) are not 'manifestly without reasonable foundation' and the withholding of consent in the applicants' case was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the 'prescribed by law' argument was not permitted to be raised for the first time on appeal; the…

  • 13 Dec 2016

    LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

    Citation
    LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV22/2015

    Although the Court accepted that Articles 6 and 105 engage and that proportionality with a balancing fourth step is the appropriate constitutional test for planning restrictions, the appellants failed to obtain the altered standard of review they sought and did not demonstrate an entitlement to costs; on balance fairness required each party to bear their own costs, so the order nisi of no order as to costs was made final.

  • 26 Sept 1985

    THE QUEEN v. SHIU CHO-KEE

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SHIU CHO-KEE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA393/1985

    Forfeiture under the Copyright Ordinance is primarily preventive but may have penal effect; magistrate erred by not balancing prevention against penal impact and totality; discretion miscarried and was exercised afresh, resulting in varied forfeiture limited to specific infringing copies and a selection of machines valued about HK$57,000 with remaining items released to the appellant.