Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasons for administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2025

LN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1090/2022

The court held that the applicant's challenge was, on the material facts, an abusive collateral attack on the criminal conviction because the TIP claim depended on factual assertions (lack of knowledge/deception) already rejected in criminal proceedings; Grounds challenging the Operational Practice and abuse were considered but failed on substantive review; the reasons ground was initially arguable because the decision letter lacked detail but became academic once fuller reasons were disclosed; overall the application is dismissed.
26 Apr 2024

TAM YUK FUN TOFFEE v. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1020
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1804/2023

The court accepted the Inquiry Committee's factual finding that the posts constituted professional misconduct but held that the Secretary's decision to impose dismissal without any pensionary benefits was so harsh and oppressive in all the circumstances that it involved an error of law: mitigating factors were not given adequate weight and the Secretary did not provide sufficient reasoning for selecting the harshest available penalty; accordingly the dismissal decision was quashed.
20 Apr 2023

RE ZUBAIR MUHARRAM

Citation

[2023] HKCA 544
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP241/2020

The notice of motion was dismissed because the applicant was 18 months late, provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap. 484; therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met and it was futile to extend time.
14 Apr 2022

TOMORROW FINANCES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2022] HKCA 531
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused because on the evidence the Challenged Requirements were rationally connected to legitimate public safety aims, fell within the spectrum of reasonable regulatory options given the Director's operational expertise and the Amoycan fire lessons, TFL failed to adduce necessary expert evidence at the leave stage to show manifest lack of reasonable foundation, and there was no breach of duty to consult or to give detailed reasons sufficient to sustain a reasonably arguable claim.
8 Nov 2021

YEUNG WING KIT v. THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1468/2021

The court held that ICAC had furnished adequate reasons for terminating the investigations by stating that its investigation revealed no evidence of corruption or other offences; given the investigative and prosecutorial context and the Commissioner's broad operational discretion under ICACO s12, the reasons were legally sufficient and the applicant suffered no substantial prejudice; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
26 Mar 2020

莊裕安 v. 終審法院司法常務官 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/2019

The appeals are dismissed because the Registrar’s issuance of Rule 7 summonses and the Appeal Committee’s determinations are not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances; Rule 7 serves as a procedural filter with no duty to give reasons when issuing a summons; recusal was not required absent actual or objectively reasonable perception of bias; the issues concerning reasons were rendered academic by subsequent Appeal Committee decisions.
31 Jan 2019

RE CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD MOBEEN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 90
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP73/2018

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an arguable question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the asserted irrationality ground was vague and not reasonably arguable; and the alleged failure to give reasons was a new point not previously argued, which the appellate courts do not permit as a basis for leave.
5 Dec 2008

FB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

FB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/2007

Blanket departmental policies that deny the presence of legal representatives during CAT screening and refuse publicly funded legal assistance to indigent claimants are unlawful because they fail the high standards of fairness required by Prabakar; further, a system where interviewers are distinct from decision-makers without adequate training of decision-makers is procedurally unfair; petition decisions require adequate reasons and, in many cases, an oral hearing and opportunity for representation; these defects require quashing of affected decisions and declaratory relief.
5 Dec 2008

M v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

M v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL106/2007

Blanket policies refusing presence of legal advisers during CAT screening and refusing publicly funded legal assistance to indigent claimants, a system in which the interviewer is not the decision-maker without adequate training of decision-makers, and denial of oral hearings and adequate reasons at petition stage fail to meet the high standard of fairness required for Article 3 CAT claims and are unlawful; remedies include declarations and setting aside of affected decisions.
4 Jul 2008

MICHAEL JOHN TRELOAR ROWSE v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND OTHERS

Citation

MICHAEL JOHN TRELOAR ROWSE v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL41/2007

The court quashed the Secretary for the Civil Service's acceptance of the Inquiry Committee report and the Chief Secretary's decision (made pursuant to an invalid delegation by the Chief Executive) because the Inquiry Committee failed to demonstrate proper application of the appropriate standard of proof and the Secretary unlawfully denied legal representation by applying a fettered policy rather than assessing fairness case-by-case, the Department of Justice adviser had a dual prosecutorial and advisory role creating a real possibility of bias and non-disclosure of legal advice breached fair…