Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies: certiorari and mandamus

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2008

MA ZHU JIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

MA ZHU JIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL115/2008

s 67A CPO requires mandatory credit for any period of custody spent in relation to the offence for which sentence is imposed, whether police custody under s 67A(1A) or remand custody under s 67A(1), and that entitlement is not negated by separate court file numbers or omission of pre-conviction custody details from a s 86 Certificate; the Commissioner's refusal to apply that statutory credit was unlawful and subject to certiorari and mandamus.
11 Jul 2005

LIU PIK HAN v. HONG KONG FEDERATION OF INSURERS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU PIK HAN v. HONG KONG FEDERATION OF INSURERS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL50/2005

The court held that Clause 39 of the Code and the statutory scheme properly construed impliedly conferred investigative powers on the Board, but the Board and the Appeals Tribunal breached the Applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 10 by disposing of serious, credibility-dependent disciplinary allegations without an oral hearing and without adequate reasons; accordingly their decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Board for fresh consideration with an oral hearing, and a mandamus directed return for that purpose.
1 Sept 2004

CHAN TAK HAU RAYMOND v. THE CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS BOARD OF THE CHINESE MEDICINE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

CHAN TAK HAU RAYMOND v. THE CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS BOARD OF THE CHINESE MEDICINE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV384/2003

Appeals of Chan Tak Kuen (CACV 383) and Chan Tak Kui Christopher (CACV 385) were dismissed because the Board was entitled to conclude the applicants did not provide sufficient objective evidence of continuous practice in Hong Kong or possession of an acceptable qualification and thus properly required them to pass the licensing examination; the appeal of Chan Tak Hau Raymond (CACV 384) was allowed because the Board's reasons were directed at the wrong statutory category and appeared pro forma, justifying quashing the decision and ordering reconsideration (certiorari and mandamus).
16 Nov 1998

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HUNG YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HUNG YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL85/1998

In a trial before a judge alone, prosecutorial comment on an accused's failure to give evidence does not automatically mandate a retrial; where the judge expressly states she can disregard the comment and there is no real risk of injustice or appearance of injustice, the correct remedy is to quash the order for retrial and, where appropriate, order the judge to continue hearing the case rather than require a new trial.
13 May 1997

MOC A PAO and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another

Citation

MOC A PAO and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP16/1997

The court held that delay would not bar review given public interest and camp access issues; for five applicants the Board's conclusion that time and improved US‑Vietnam relations reduced the real risk of persecution was within the range of reasonable inferences from available country material and therefore their challenges were dismissed; however the Board irrationally disbelieved material aspects of A6's claim and failed to address whether his claimed links and wartime activities gave rise to a well‑founded fear, so that A6's Board decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration by th…
13 Jun 1985

QUEBOSTOCK LTD v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation

QUEBOSTOCK LTD v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1410/1985

On a contextual construction of Part II (notably sections 23,24 and 24A read together) the court concluded that s.24(1) does not confer a discretion on the Building Authority because it lacks qualifying language such as "in the opinion of"; consequently the Appeal Tribunal under s.43(1) had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's appeal and the applicant's motion for certiorari, declaration and mandamus was dismissed. The court further held that time specifications in orders in this context are not discretionary where the statutory text and related provisions indicate mandatory prescription.

Hong Kong Case Law

MA ZHU JIANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

LIU PIK HAN v. HONG KONG FEDERATION OF INSURERS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

CHAN TAK HAU RAYMOND v. THE CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS BOARD OF THE CHINESE MEDICINE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN HUNG YIP AND OTHERS

MOC A PAO and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another

QUEBOSTOCK LTD v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS