Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevant considerations

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2025

THAPA KHIMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2653/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success, failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements in Form 86 and the affirmation, the proposed challenge was essentially a merits challenge or out of time, and there was no arguable Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's Reconsideration Decision.
21 Jun 2023

CHAN YAU LING v. HOUSING APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL427/2023

Leave refused. Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: Tribunal had before it and considered the applicant's pandemic and schooling arguments; undisputed breach of tenancy was central; applicant elected to enter tenancy aware of residence obligation; no sufficiently arguable public law error or fettering to permit leave.
6 Oct 2020

RIAZ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2020

The Permanent Secretary was not under a legal duty to have regard to the specific matters alleged by the applicants when deciding whether to suspend or rescind the deportation order under s20(1)(a) and ss54–55, he had considered the applicants' representations and was entitled to conclude that the seriousness of the offences and the public interest justified maintaining the life deportation order; the judicial review application was not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
30 Apr 2018

LUI YUET TIN v. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 934
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2014

The court accepted the respondent's evidence that TD officers conducted and relied upon traffic and transport assessments and professional judgment, found no unlawful abdication of decision‑making or fatal unfairness in the Consultation, and therefore dismissed the applicant's judicial review challenge to the Decision.
13 Apr 2018

FUNG JING EN v. THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL263/2015

The court exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review applications despite arguments of mootness because the issues raised involved important questions of public law and academic freedom under BL137 that were reasonably arguable and of wider public interest, and because if a corresponding public law duty had arisen the Council was subject to judicial scrutiny on procedural fairness, relevant considerations and adequacy of reasons.
13 Apr 2018

LI FUNG KEI v. THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL262/2015

The court exercised its discretion to permit the judicial review proceedings to proceed (grant leave) because the applicants raised reasonably arguable and important public law issues relating to procedural fairness, irrelevant considerations and adequacy of reasons in the context of alleged interference implicating institutional autonomy and academic freedom under BL137, and because the factual disputes were real rather than purely hypothetical so that a useful purpose would be served by hearing the applications.
17 May 2012

AGUILAR JOENALYN ELMEDORIAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

AGUILAR JOENALYN ELMEDORIAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL40/2011

The Court held that the effective decision-maker was Mr Wong who independently considered all available material (including the letter of representations), that the FDH policy legitimately permits consideration of a criminal record as part of the 'normal immigration requirements' and therefore as a 'record to her detriment', that there was no material procedural unfairness or bias infecting the decision, and that the Director had taken into account relevant extenuating circumstances and reached a decision within the range of reasonable responses; accordingly the judicial review failed and the…
20 Jan 2009

LAI SAM HING SAM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAI SAM HING SAM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL56/2008

The FDO's decision was irrational and unlawful because he proceeded on the incorrect assumption that a general warning would normally lead to dismissal and failed to take into account relevant considerations including the suspension of the Macau notification requirement (which reduced the seriousness of the earlier offence) and the mitigating facts relating to the additional loans; accordingly both the FDO's and the Commissioner's decisions were quashed and the matters remitted for proper reconsideration.
25 Sept 2002

LO YUET HING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO YUET HING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL95/2002

The Housing Authority's practice and implementation evidenced a systematic refusal to determine or reach conclusions on tenants' claims of ignorance of illegal activity, thereby fettering its discretion and omitting a relevant consideration; the Appeal Tribunal likewise failed to make any determination on that material issue; consequently both decisions to issue and to confirm the notice to quit were unlawful and were quashed by certiorari.
14 Nov 1996

The Wing On Co. Ltd. and Others v. Building Authority

Citation

The Wing On Co. Ltd. and Others v. Building Authority
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV168/1996

The Court held that the Building Appeal Tribunal did not commit an error of law in treating the appellants' site-specific traffic-generation evidence as irrelevant; traffic considerations were area-wide planning matters for the Town Planning Board, and the Tribunal acted within its discretionary margin under s.16 in refusing to depart from the draft OZP's plot ratio of 12; appeal dismissed.