Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory duty

Legal area

Court

26 Jan 2026

中紀投資有限公司 CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LIMITED v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING and STL COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV88/2025

Leave to appeal was granted because the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the posed question — whether and in what circumstances waiver or acquiescence can curtail or excuse the statutory duty under s.18(1)(c) BMO, apart from DMC breaches involving illegality — raises a question of requisite legal importance for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
26 May 2025

CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 505
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the questions did not meet the threshold of great, general or public importance and were not reasonably arguable; existing authorities and the fact‑specific nature of waiver/acquiescence resolve the issues without a further appeal; costs awarded to respondents.
8 Jul 2022

ACTIN TRADING LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHIU TAT FACTORY BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 547
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1946/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove causation that the dripping in the Factory Unit originated from the Hole connected to Flat 1D, failed to prove the Hole was a defect that defendants knew or should have reasonably foreseen would cause the damage, and failed to prove negligence or breach of statutory duties under OLO and BMO; non-expert factual opinion was insufficient to establish the mechanism of seepage and claimed quantum was not proven; accordingly the claims are dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
19 Oct 2021

PAULUS JOHANNES ZIMMERMAN, THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COUNCIL v. THE SECRETARY OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COUNCIL

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3030
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1827/2020

Where an agenda item, properly analysed, contains some matters within a District Council's s.61 functions and some matters outside them, the Secretary is not legally bound to treat the whole item as within the Council's functions or to use public resources to enable discussion of parts that are ultra vires; determining compatibility requires looking at the true nature and purpose of the matters proposed, and the chairman is not the final arbiter of ultra vires questions. Because Item 10 encompassed both intra vires and likely ultra vires elements, a blanket declaratory order as sought by the…
4 Sept 2019

CHOY CHUN SING v. WONG KWOK CHUN

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1172
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI974/2014

The judge refused leave because he had properly applied the governing principle that an experienced employee performing a simple task could reasonably be relied upon by the employer, found the plaintiff experienced and the wife's alleged pressure unproven, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
28 Aug 2019

蕭天恩對 CS IXPRESS.COM LTD t/a GOLDEN DELIVERY CO

Citation

[2019] HKCA 974
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV459/2018

Security for costs of HK$245,000 was ordered because the appellant was found to be impecunious and the appeal did not show an obvious or manifest prospect of success on a preliminary assessment; it was fair to protect the respondent against difficulty in enforcing costs, and the amount was reasonable to cover estimated appeal costs including an assessed summary costs figure of HK$80,000.
19 Nov 2018

汪裕祖對城市規劃委員會

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1433
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1528/2018

The claim was an abuse of process because it fundamentally challenged the legality of an administrative rezoning decision that should be pursued by judicial review; the pleaded causes of action disclosed no reasonable grounds because no statutory duty or private law duty of care was pleaded or established and planning restrictions do not give rise to compensable deprivation; accordingly the statement of claim must be struck out and the action dismissed.
26 Jan 2018

AGACER JAMES C. v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 126
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA822/2017

Master found no undue delay in processing the applications on the facts; even if there had been delay, the Legal Aid Ordinance does not confer a private law cause of action for damages against the Director for breach of statutory duties, therefore the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.
21 Jul 2017

KOO MING KOWN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOO MING KOWN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2599/2016

The statement of claim disclosed no private law cause of action against the SFC because it sought to compel exercise of a statutory power and to enforce general public functions under s5(1) rather than assert any private legal right; such relief is exclusively public law in nature and must be pursued by judicial review/mandamus under Order 53 and s21K, and the claim is also barred by statutory immunity and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the statement of claim must be struck out and the action dismissed.
27 Dec 2013

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL147/2013

BA validly served the building orders on Easy Groups Ltd/HKTAL in accordance with s24(2)(c); BA was entitled to act on information available at the time and had no legal duty to serve subsequent claimants or every person who might later assert ownership under Category (i); the applicants failed the reasonable arguability test and leave is dismissed; interim injunction discharged.