Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to fair hearing

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2021

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1662
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV529/2018

The court exercised its residual discretion to admit the proposed affidavits because the fresh evidence concerns the fundamental right to a fair hearing in the public law sphere, could disclose arguable impropriety by the Tribunal Chairman, is from an apparently credible source, and fairness requires admission despite the Ladd v Marshall criteria not being satisfied; therefore leave was granted to adduce the affidavits with specified directions and timeline.
10 Feb 2021

RE RAHMAN ZAIWR UR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 151
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, his complaint about lack of an oral hearing was not raised earlier and he failed to show real prejudice from its absence; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave.
17 May 2018

NANCY ANN KISSEL v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2016

The Board was not required to demarcate or indicate a punitive tariff or a fixed 'triggering period' when declining to recommend substitution of a determinate sentence; as an executive review body it must assess each review afresh under s.8(c) of the Ordinance and the refusal to indicate a triggering period did not breach Article 80 of the Basic Law, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, or natural justice in the circumstances of this case.
30 Mar 2015

HKSAR v. SHOKI FATUMA RAMADHANI

Citation

HKSAR v. SHOKI FATUMA RAMADHANI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC187/2014

By majority the Court held that on the admitted facts (promise of US$4,000 and US$2,600 found on the applicant) there was sufficient prima facie evidence to infer a connection under section 56(1) Cap.134 and the judge was justified in ordering forfeiture; the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay so extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
27 Feb 2015

WML v. LCK

Citation

WML v. LCK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2014

The appeal was allowed and the judgment below set aside because the trial judge’s refusal to grant short adjournments deprived the husband of a fair hearing and because the trial judge applied an incorrect analytical starting point (presumption of advancement and exclusion of oral contemporaneous evidence) in determining beneficial ownership; a retrial is required to determine beneficial ownership and ancillary relief afresh.
11 Oct 2013

RE ZITTA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE ZITTA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL89/2013

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grievance concerns the quantum and method of valuation for compensation, for which the statutory remedy is determination by the Lands Tribunal and appeal as provided by statute; there are no exceptional circumstances to justify High Court judicial review and the applicant lacks a separate sufficient interest to challenge the Guidelines in public law proceedings.
24 Jul 2013

香港特別行政區訴張建忠

Citation

香港特別行政區訴張建忠
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA374/2013

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate gave clear, adequate reasons demonstrating good cause to refuse the issuance of summons under Cap.227 s8(1B)(b), and no reasonable fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend bias; therefore there was no breach of the Bill of Rights or denial of a fair hearing.
20 Jul 2011

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV38/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds either were time‑barred or were fundamentally unarguable; section 6 BORO could not rescue the plaintiff's case by providing an unlimited new cause of action capable of displacing existing procedural rules and limitation requirements, and therefore the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed.
16 Sept 2010

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2008

Leave to appeal was refused: the Court held Lam Siu Po controlled, the absence of an express request for legal representation did not distinguish the case given the factual history and conduct of the applicant, and where an applicant would have reasonably believed a request futile or where the facts permit inference, denial of representation can amount to deprivation of a fair hearing warranting quashing; thus no leave to appeal on the posed question was granted.
16 Sept 2010

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP641/2010

The court agreed with the learned judge below that O.53 r.4 is not inconsistent with s.6(1) BOR; the applicant's leave application was out of time and no exceptional circumstances justified an extension of time under Hung Chan Wa; the questions raised did not amount to matters of great general or public importance; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.