Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right of access to courts

Legal area

Court

8 May 2017

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1618/2016

Section 22 SFO extinguishes civil liability for a recognised exchange company for acts done in good faith in carrying out duties under section 21; the plaintiff has no viable private law claim to compel investigations or suspend trading and has not pleaded bad faith with required particulars; section 22 is constitutional and proportionate; accordingly the claim against the SEHK is struck out and dismissed.
21 Apr 2016

LEE YIU KEI v. HONG KONG LAND LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YIU KEI v. HONG KONG LAND LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV198/2015

The Court dismissed the appeals because the claims were re-litigation of issues already finally determined and therefore constituted an abuse of process and vexatious proceedings; RAOs/RPOs and the statutory regime (including s27A(2) HCO) precluded the further proceedings or appeals without leave; there was no entitlement to adjournment and the Basic Law/Hong Kong Bill of Rights did not confer protection for collateral attacks on final judgments.
11 Jun 2012

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2011

The Court held that the removal order issued under s.19(1)(b) was lawful and not time‑limited; s.32(4)(a) concerning 28‑day detention limits was inapplicable; failure to effect summary removal under s.18 within two months did not bar later removal under s.19; and the Director did not irrationally or unlawfully prevent the appellant from pursuing his civil claim nor commit abuse of power; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
30 Mar 2012

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2011

Section 69’s case stated procedure does not infringe the applicants’ BL35 right of access to the courts; the Board of Review is Article 10 compliant and the combination of appeal by way of case stated, appeals on points of law and availability of judicial review provide adequate and proportionate judicial oversight such that no right to a general appeal on facts is required; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
16 Feb 2011

HKSAR v. LO WAI YAN WINNIE

Citation

HKSAR v. LO WAI YAN WINNIE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC254/2009

The court exercised its discretion to certify the single point that the offence of maintenance must be examined for sufficient precision to qualify as prescribed by law under Article 39 Basic Law and according to law under Article 11(1) BORO, finding that this is a point of great and general importance; the court declined to certify the point on access to courts because the applicant had abandoned it and the court had not heard arguments on it, so it would not exercise its discretion to certify that issue.
20 Jan 2005

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2004

The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the courts includes power to make limited extended Grepe v Loam orders restraining anticipated abusive fresh proceedings where justified, that such orders are compatible with Basic Law rights when proportionate and clearly defined, and that s.27 HCO does not implicitly abolish that narrower inherent jurisdiction; the particular extended order below was within jurisdiction but unworkable as drafted and must be amended under the Court's directions.
30 May 1997

HARVEST SHEEN LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

HARVEST SHEEN LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL28/1997

The court held there was only one contract: the 2nd Applicant signed as agent for an unnamed principal with the 1st Applicant in mind and the company subsequently ratified the transaction such that the contract related back to 5 March 1997; therefore the Collector's assessment imposing duplicate duty on the 2nd Applicant was unlawful and was quashed. The High Court exercised its discretion to permit judicial review because exceptional circumstances existed (risk of time‑bar under s.14 and a clear error of law by the Collector).

Hong Kong Case Law

ZHI CHARLES v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

LEE YIU KEI v. HONG KONG LAND LTD AND ANOTHER

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LO WAI YAN WINNIE

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER

HARVEST SHEEN LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE