Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retirement in the public interest

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2022

WOO TAK YAN v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1624
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2022

The Court held the applicant's inserted words did not constitute a real, true or valid signature demonstrating assent; all relevant documents and opportunities to be heard had been provided; no material irregularity or unfairness was established; any technical departure from s12 did not cause substantive prejudice and would not justify granting leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.
26 Oct 2006

LAW CHUN LOY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LAW CHUN LOY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2005

The court refused to extend time and refused leave because the 14‑month delay was undue, the applicant was personally responsible for a substantial portion (at least five months) of the delay, and the overall delay was detrimental to good administration of the Police Force such that granting relief would be prejudicial and unjustified.
11 Mar 2005

YEUNG TIN LEUNG, VINCENT v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Citation

YEUNG TIN LEUNG, VINCENT v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL90/2003

Applicant's proceedings were dismissed because contemporaneous records rebutted non-disclosure, allegations of actual and apparent bias were unproven and unreasonable on the evidence, the assessments were not Wednesbury irrational, and any procedural imperfections were cured or rendered immaterial by the Chief Executive's section 12 process and the Applicant's failure to raise bias in his representations.
12 Mar 1999

Chan Tak Shing v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR

Citation

Chan Tak Shing v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/1998

Although s.12 does not require the Chief Executive to call for a departmental report, it was a breach of natural justice for the decision‑maker to consider a submission in reply that was not disclosed to the officer and to deny him an opportunity to respond; accordingly the Chief Executive's decision was quashed.
15 Sept 1998

In re Chan Tak Shing

Citation

In re Chan Tak Shing
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL25/1998

Where misconduct allegations cannot be established to the degree required for disciplinary punishment under sections 9 or 10 but support a loss of confidence, it is lawful for the Chief Executive to require retirement in the public interest under section 12; compliance with s12 is satisfied if the officer was informed of the grounds and given a chance to make representations, and nondisclosure of documents that do not introduce new grounds does not render the procedure unfair.
19 Aug 1992

RE CHEUNG WING KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

RE CHEUNG WING KWAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/1991

By majority the Court held the Secretary's letters and the opportunity to make representations satisfied Regulation 59 and natural justice requirements; the undisclosed prosecutorial and DPP remarks did not add materially to the case the appellants had to meet and therefore nondisclosure did not render the process unfair; legitimate expectation argument failed because reinstatement did not amount to a promise to avoid retirement that could override the public interest discretion; appeals were dismissed (with an order nisi for costs). Dissenting judgment held nondisclosure of prosecutorial/DPP…

Hong Kong Case Law

WOO TAK YAN v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE

LAW CHUN LOY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

YEUNG TIN LEUNG, VINCENT v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Chan Tak Shing v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR

In re Chan Tak Shing

RE CHEUNG WING KWAN AND OTHERS