13 Mar 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked standing (sufficient interest), the application was academic/non-justiciable, and the applicant failed to plead reasonably arguable public law grounds as required by Order 53, such that there was no basis to grant ex parte leave.
1 Nov 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error by the Chief Executive or Secretary for Justice; the Basic Law provisions relied on do not impose a duty to respond to the emails and therefore there was no basis for leave to apply for judicial review.
19 Apr 2022
The Decision was interlocutory; the 1st defendant failed to meet the applicable threshold for an out‑of‑time application (no reasonable or real prospect of success given inexcusable delay); the release of the Director from the implied undertaking was justified on public interest grounds and because the Documents were connected to the originating cause of action; no LPP was asserted, so no shift of burden occurred.
4 Mar 2021
The court granted release from the implied undertaking because the Director demonstrated cogent and persuasive reasons: the documents are necessary for investigation of false statutory declarations, for the Director to determine whether and how to enforce or revoke licences and permissions that are voidable, and for referral to law enforcement; the public interest in disclosure outweighs any injustice to parties who disclosed documents, and the defendants offered no sufficient prejudice or privilege to refuse release.
17 Dec 2019
The court held the matters asserted by the applicant are factual determinations (the trial judge found disclosures were made to raise personal profile and not in the public interest) and not questions of law of great and general importance; the applicant never relied on 'raising profile' as a pleaded reasonable excuse, and established authorities (notably HKSAR v Ho Loy) already govern the legal test for 'reasonable excuse'. The certification application under Cap 484 s32 therefore fails and is dismissed.
27 May 2019
The court found there is a serious question to be tried that the Defendant was subject to enforceable confidentiality obligations under the NDA and Letter of Agreement, that the information is confidential and liable to cause irreparable harm if published, that Hong Kong has jurisdiction and is the appropriate forum, and that the balance of convenience favors continuing the injunction; accordingly the interim injunction is continued and the Defendant's procedural challenges and discovery/strike out applications are dismissed.
15 Apr 2011
There was a family consensus that the 1st and 2nd Defendants would act as intended administrators and they legitimately obtained the joint bank statements for estate administration and therefore owed a limited duty of confidence; transferring the statements to incoming intended administrators to facilitate administration did not amount to a breach warranting injunctive relief; the 4th Defendant's disclosure for alleged public interest/misconduct was not established as falling within the narrow public interest exception (fraud/crime/national security) and his disclosure was a breach but did no…
26 Jan 2006
Section 27(2)(d) of the Broadcasting Ordinance does permit disclosure in the public interest but the Authority lawfully exercised its discretion after considering the technology‑neutral policy and the particular facts, reasonably concluding the public interest did not require disclosure; the decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair and Galaxy's request was a minor variation under licence condition 32 not requiring gazettal as a new licence application; judicial review dismissed.
1 Dec 2005
The Authority's application to set aside leave was dismissed: IGCO s.64(3) allows judicial review despite an appeal to the Chief Executive and IGCO s.64(4) confines the CE to an administrative role so the appeal is not an adequate or equivalent remedy to preclude judicial review; PCCW had an arguable case and leave should stand.
30 Apr 1991
The court ruled that the cross-examination using material said to be in the medical record was not out of order and that the confidential medical information could be disclosed because (a) the record was in the 3rd defendant's custody with no evidence of deceit in procurement, (b) confidentiality is not absolute or privileged, and (c) the public interest in the administration of justice and the plaintiff's own prior disclosure of the subject-matter outweighed any residual privacy interest, so the record could be introduced.