Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ultra vires review

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2025

PONOMAROVA OLENA v. JUDICIAL ASSISTANT LAU YUEK-LAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1141/2024

None of the Applicant's intended public law grounds was reasonably arguable: the Registry's actions were authorized by statute and rules (fee remission rules, Form B requirements, consultation with Official Receiver), section 14AB barred the second leave application, and there was no breach of Basic Law Article 35; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
27 Feb 2009

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING APPEAL BOARD

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRADER LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV407/2007

On a true construction of the Town Planning Ordinance and the approved Mid-Levels West OZP, the Town Planning Board’s discretion when deciding s.16 applications is constrained by the parameters and planning intention of the approved plan; taking into account material considerations outside that ambit is ultra vires. The judge below was correct to quash the Board’s decision and to order mandamus directing allowance of the appeal in the circumstances. The mandamus was lawfully made and remained enforceable despite panel membership changes.
4 Jul 2007

NG NGAU CHAI v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG NGAU CHAI v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL64/2007

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise the decision complained of, failed to identify the specific provisions of the Urban Design Guidelines or other statutory provisions allegedly breached, did not show promptness within the three‑month limitation, and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish an arguable case of illegality or irrationality.
25 Nov 1997

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAK YUE RESTAURANT LTD.

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAK YUE RESTAURANT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA894/1997

The court held that the Technical Memorandum guides assessment and compliance but does not fetter the Authority's discretion to specify stricter or different noise limits in a noise abatement notice directed at an individual source; a notice is not invalid solely because its limits are lower than those in the Technical Memorandum, therefore the magistrate erred in holding the notice invalid and the appeal is allowed and the case remitted for trial before another magistrate.
16 Sept 1993

ALLIED GROUP LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Another

Citation

ALLIED GROUP LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/1993

The Court of Appeal held the Financial Secretary lawfully established a steering committee within his statutory powers under s143 Companies Ordinance; nothing in the committee's terms of reference, the evidence of its conduct, or press reports gave rise to an arguable real danger that the inspector's independence or objectivity had been compromised. The applicants had no realistic prospect of showing apparent bias at the leave stage; appeal dismissed.
6 Aug 1992

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC240/1991

The court held that s.47(1)(b), limited by the requirement of "physical possession," and s.47(2) are consistent with Article 14.2 ICCPR as applied in Hong Kong because the presumptions satisfy the three-fold test (rational connection, minimal impairment, proportionality) in light of legislative aims to combat drug trafficking; s.47(2) is valid when it depends on a sustainable presumption under s.47(1)(b).
27 Jul 1992

THE QUEEN v. LUM WAI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LUM WAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC75/1991

The amended s.47(1)(c) (presumption based on possession of keys to a motor vehicle containing drugs) fails the threefold test (rational connection, proportionality, minimum impairment) and is inconsistent with Article 14.2 ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong and therefore ultra vires Article VII(3) of the Letters Patent and must be repealed; the amended provisions using 'physical possession' and s.47(1)(a),(b) and s.47(2) are sufficiently narrowed, justified on the balance of probabilities in the context of Hong Kong's need to combat drug trafficking, and are upheld.
29 Apr 1983

WINFAT ENTERPRISES (HK) CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WINFAT ENTERPRISES (HK) CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP982/1982

The court held that plaintiffs' predecessors held land under Chinese common tenure subject to land taxes and, absent nuisance, could use land for non-building purposes prior to resumption; the 1899 Chinese proclamations had no legal effect as municipal law; the impugned ordinances were clear, intra vires under the Order in Council and Letters Patent and were not invalidated by Governors' assent even if given contrary to Royal Instructions because of the operation of Colonial Laws Validity Act s.4 and by non-disallowance; accordingly most declarations challenging the validity of ordinances, le…