Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory interpretation

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

JOENALYN COLLANTES VILLANUEVA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1830
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL418/2026

The application for leave was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed over ten months late, the applicant's explanation for the delay was unreasonable, and under the revised s37TZ the Board had no discretion to extend time; there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.
26 Mar 2026

LEE KAM LEUNG PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUIDLINGS)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL456/2025

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held the Building Authority had statutory power under s24 BO and s46 IGCO to issue the 2021 substituted order; the Appeal Tribunal was not functus officio and correctly held the 2021 order did not amount to res judicata or abuse of process; the BAT acted within its wide discretion in ordering costs (including Preliminary Hearing costs) and in assessing the BA’s stated costs at HK$294,071 given the applicants’ failure to respond or propose an alternative taxation procedure.
23 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. YEUNG SUET YING CLARISSE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 284
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC253/2024

On a purposive construction informed by NPC legislative materials, "other unlawful means" in NSL 22 encompasses all unlawful means other than force or threat of force and is not restricted to criminal offences; an honest belief in lawfulness is relevant evidence to mens rea but does not negate the specific intent required for NSL 22; the Scheme to obtain a LegCo majority to indiscriminately veto budgets in order to trigger BL50-52 consequences was an unlawful means and a prohibited Course of Conduct under NSL 22(3); LegCo members are bound by BL104 oath and cannot use constitutional powers to…
11 Feb 2026

HO WAI YIN v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1465/2025

Where a single original residential property is replaced by a single subject property, s.29DF can bear a meaning that permits disposal of the original property by more than one instrument; the court will give effect to substance over form read with s.29A(3), s.2 SDO and s.7(2) IGCO; the applicant met the disposal and application time limits; therefore the Collector's decision refusing the refund was quashed and the refund ordered.
2 Feb 2026

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 11
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV211/2023

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Recorder: TP Wong authored the SF 2003 plans and the as-built installation in the course of employment so Plaintiff owns copyright; the installation qualifies as a 'work of architecture' under s 5 without a requirement of artistic quality; the SF 2005 plans (and consequentially the MS plans and Defendant's installation) reproduced substantial and qualitatively important parts of the SF 2003 plans/installation; the s 115 presumption of Gammon/Lambeth authorship was rebutted by evidence; therefore Defendant infringed Plaintiff's copyright.
20 Jan 2026

AHAMED MOHAMMAD SHAMIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1282/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that could have led to a different outcome; although reliance on the Malaysian stay as a credibility factor raised a question, it was only one factor and the tribunal gave alternative reasons showing the same result would have been inevitable, so review was not justified.
14 Jan 2026

GANBOLD, GANZORIG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 273
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2658/2025

The Board lawfully exercised its discretion to refuse late filing: it considered the applicant's stated reasons and evidence, found inconsistencies and absence of documentary proof of circumstances beyond the applicant's control, and applied the correct legal test under the amended s37ZT(2); no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown and the leave application was not reasonably arguable, so leave was refused.
13 Jan 2026

CHOW HANG TUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1528/2024

The application is dismissed. On the evidence the Clothing Policy and Scales do not amount to unlawful sex discrimination under the SDO or breach BL25/BOR22 because the circumstances of male and female prisoners are not materially identical, the differential treatment is not objectively less favourable, legitimate aims (safety, health, privacy, decency, suitability for activities, security and discipline) are rationally connected to the policy, thermal comfort was considered in task‑group reviews and expert evidence, exceptions are available and granted in practice, and the Commissioner is en…
2 Jan 2026

周國明 v. 民政及青年事務局局長 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 91
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2786/2025

Court permitted amendment to add the EAC and granted leave to apply for judicial review (applicant has standing and arguable grounds) but refused the interim injunction because the balance of convenience and public interest favoured refusing interim relief; earlier temporary injunction was lifted.
24 Nov 2025

HA CHE WAI v. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PAMELA YOUDE NETHERSOLE EASTERN PSYCHIATRIC OBSERVATION UNIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2374/2023

Section 68A of the Mental Health Ordinance properly applies to patients in detention and not to persons who have been discharged (even conditionally under s.42B); s.68A does not impose a positive duty to inform detained patients of rights to representation, legal representation or availability of legal aid for Tribunal proceedings; neither common law nor BOR5 require a positive duty to inform CD patients of representation/legal aid; however, because CD patients are disadvantaged relative to detained patients, the common law requires mental hospitals and the Hospital Authority to take such rea…