Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Small house policy

Legal area

Court

12 May 2025

MAK HIN KWAN v. WIKI CAPITAL FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2617/2018

The court dismissed both summonses for leave to amend the defences because the applications were made after inordinate unexplained delay and the proposed amendments would cause significant prejudice; additionally, the necessary factual basis to establish illegality was not before the court, so leave to amend was refused and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis with a certificate for two counsel.
12 May 2025

MAK HIN KWAN v. WIKI CAPITAL FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2016

The summonses for leave to amend the defences were dismissed because the defendants failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in applying to amend and because the proposed amendments would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff; additionally the court was not satisfied that the facts bearing on alleged illegality were fully known so as to permit determination without proper pleadings and evidence.
4 Mar 2025

LEE KENG WAI AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL393/2024

The TPAB's Decision was irrational in public law terms because it failed to afford proper weight to and to consider relevant material factors (including prior planning permissions, the advanced stage of Lands Department processing, proximity to the V‑zone/VE and the applicants' efforts and expenditure), such that no reasonable TPAB could have reached the Decision; accordingly the Decision was quashed and mandamus was ordered directing the relevant board to grant the planning permissions on the facts of this case.
19 Aug 2024

SIME DARBY MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 26
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV71/2024

Leave to appeal was granted only on two reformulated questions of public importance: (1) the circumstances in which Director of Lands' decisions on land exchange, lease modification or other government lease matters are amenable to judicial review; and (2) if reviewable, whether application of a policy that may render land incapable of meaningful development is inherently illogical, irrational or perverse. Leave was refused on the remaining questions because the Court of Appeal's factual findings that the Director had considered exceptions and genuinely exercised discretion were not shown to…
13 May 2024

SIME DARBY MOTOR SERVICES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV408/2022

The Court held that the Director's Decision implementing the VE Guideline was not a decision in the public law domain and therefore not amenable to judicial review; alternatively, even if reviewable the applicant failed to establish substantive grounds (irrationality, illegality or breach of legitimate expectation); accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and costs awarded to the respondent.
8 Mar 2024

SIME DARBY MOTOR SERVICES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 207
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV408/2022

The Court of Appeal held the Decision refusing the in-situ land exchange was not amenable to judicial review because it was an exercise of the Government's rights as landowner/landlord within a contractual context and lacked a sufficient public element; it found the VE Guideline (Technical Circular No.620C) existed but that even if reviewable the Decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, the guideline did not amount to unlawful fettering and no legitimate expectation arose from the zoning, and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the judicial review claim.
1 Mar 2024

KING MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TANG YUK LING DOBE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA257/2023

The appeal is dismissed and the 2nd Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend because the 2nd Defendant has demonstrated an arguable real defence: it is reasonably arguable there was no total failure of consideration given the express terms apportioning development risk to the Plaintiffs and the absence of an express obligation on the 2nd Defendant to procure villagers' performance, and there are triable factual issues (construction of the Agreements, knowledge and alleged misrepresentation). The defence of illegality was not established as a clear bar on restitution on the papers an…
14 Nov 2023

WONG KOON WAH v. ALL PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 775 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT 216 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1279
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2021

The Court accepted the trial judge's adverse credibility findings, upheld that the 1979 power of attorney was genuine, and concluded on the facts that the 2nd defendant and its predecessors acquired and exercised possession and equitable rights by reason of resulting trust/proprietary estoppel and by adverse possession for the requisite period; accordingly the plaintiff's appeal failed and the 2nd defendant's declarations and possessory findings stand.
14 Sept 2022

SIME DARBY MOTOR SERVICES LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL933/2020

The Decision refusing to process the land exchange application was amenable to judicial review; the respondent failed to produce cogent evidence of a lawful and consistently applied VEB internal policy and, even if such guideline existed, its application to the Subject Lots was irrational and applied inflexibly, resulting in unlawful fettering of discretion and frustration of the applicant's substantive and procedural legitimate expectations; the Decision was quashed and the application remitted for reconsideration.
31 Dec 2021

LI LAP WAI v. LEE TIN CHOI also known as LI TIN CHOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3923
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2287/2014

Although the development agreements were illegal and could not be relied on to found beneficial title, the plaintiff established proprietary estoppel by 'standing by' because strangers (developer and plaintiff/family) expended money and took possession in the belief they had rights, the first defendant knew of their belief and acquiesced, and it would be unconscionable for the first defendant to assert resulting trust; accordingly the Transfer was voidable and must be set aside and title restored to the plaintiff; the Purported GPA was not established to have been procured by actionable misre…