Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public interest litigation exception

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS v. HEUNG YEE KUK (Interested Party)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 27
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV204/2021

The Court exercised its discretion to waive the standard security-for-costs condition because the appellant is indisputably bankrupt, there is a real risk that requiring substantial security would stifle appeals of great public importance (where conditional leave has already been granted), and the public interest in resolving the constitutional issues outweighed the respondents' interest in cost protection in this exceptional case.
23 Jul 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS v. HEUNG YEE KUK (Interested Party)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 27
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV205/2021

The Court exercised its discretion to waive the standard security requirement because (a) the appeals raise questions of great public importance warranting final determination, (b) the applicant is undeniably bankrupt and lacks realistic means or third-party funding so that ordering security would likely stifle the appeals, and (c) the Court of Appeal had applied the public interest litigation exception below; those factors together constituted good grounds to vary the standard condition in this exceptional case.
23 Jul 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS v. HEUNG YEE KUK (Interested Party)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 27
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV206/2021

The court exercised its discretion to waive the standard security-for-costs condition: although the standard condition remains appropriate generally and applicants must show good grounds to vary it, the applicant's undisputed bankruptcy, absence of legal aid (pending review) and the grant of leave on questions of great public importance created a reasonable prima facie inference that requiring security (up to HK$4.8M) would stifle the appeals; accordingly security was waived for all respondents in the three consolidated appeals.
15 Jul 2021

LEUNG KWOK HUNG v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1012
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2019

The Court exercised its discretion under the PIL framework and held the PIL criteria were satisfied: the appeals were properly brought, raised issues of great general public importance, and the appellate judgments materially contributed to the law; accordingly the Court ordered no order as to costs in all appeals (including costs of submissions on costs).
15 Jul 2021

LUI CHI HANG, HENDRICK v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1012
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2019

The Court exercised its discretion in favour of the public interest litigation exception and ordered no order as to costs in all appeals because the three PIL criteria were satisfied (public benefit, significant legal contribution at appellate level, no private gain) and the appeals were not so manifestly unmeritorious as to justify departing from the exception; multiplicity of proceedings and some unattractive conduct did not, on the facts, outweigh the PIL factors and the Court declined to penalise costs for that reason, including costs of submissions on costs.
15 Jul 2021

LEUNG CHUNG HANG, SIXTUS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1012
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2019

The court exercised its discretion on costs in favour of the applicants: the PIL exception applied and, on balance, justified no order as to costs in all appeals because the appeals were properly brought, raised matters of great general public importance and made a significant contribution to the law despite not succeeding; multiplicity of proceedings and some rejected points did not outweigh PIL factors in the circumstances.
22 Mar 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER v. KWOK WING HANG AND 23 OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 11
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2020

The Court held the public interest litigation exception applied because the proceedings raised issues of obvious general and public importance, none of the applicants stood to gain private advantage, and there was demonstrated prospect of success; accordingly there should be no order as to costs in FACV 6,7,8 and 9 of 2020 and the Court of Appeal’s no-order costs decisions in the intermediate appeals and in respect of the first instance proceedings are confirmed; HCAL 2949/2019 costs remain undisturbed and Leung Kwok Hung’s costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
31 Dec 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIU CHUNG YIM

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3378/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the court had properly exercised its wide discretion on costs by considering the particular facts of Mr Yiu's case (including the milder alteration of the oath, his understandable mistaken belief and public interest considerations) and therefore the Decision that no order as to costs should be made for Mr Yiu was not plainly wrong or legally flawed.
31 Dec 2019

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL226/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering relevant factual distinctions (notably the milder nature of Mr Yiu's oath variation and his stated belief), correctly treated the public interest argument as part of factual matrix absent reliance on the PIL exception, and properly weighed other relevant factors leading to a just and fair outcome of no order as to costs for Mr Yiu.