22 Jun 2018
CHUNG CHIU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 1421
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL69/2014
[2018] HKCFI 1421
Hong Kong Case Law
Village representative elections
27 Apr 2011
CHAN CHI SHING v. 陳觀華
- Citation
- CHAN CHI SHING v. 陳觀華
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL9/2011
The Revising Officer's decision dated 17 September 2010 is quashed because uncontroverted contemporaneous genealogical evidence (Lo Wai, Ha Wai and Wan Lok genealogies) established that KW Chan and the 116 People could not be male-line descendants required by VREO and the Revising Officer failed to take those relevant materials into account, producing a material error of fact and irrational decision; accordingly KW Chan was not duly elected and the inclusion of the 116 People in the final register constituted a material irregularity.
5 Nov 2007
LAI TAK SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- LAI TAK SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACV5/2007
Section 67 does not empower the Secretary to add new indigenous villages to Schedule 2; the statutory power is confined to correcting errors and matters of detail within the legislative scheme which adopted the 1999 village list, and cannot be used to effect substantive expansion of constituencies; appeal dismissed.
9 Oct 2006
LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS
- Citation
- LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV201/2005
Although the Secretary had in effect fettered his discretion by treating the consulted policy and rural committee recognition as conclusive and failing to independently exercise the discretion under s.67, the uncontested factual findings by the court below that Tsing Yi Hui is not an indigenous village and that the applicant is not an indigenous inhabitant render any remittal futile; accordingly the applicant's appeal against the Secretary's decision is dismissed.
24 May 2005
LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS
- Citation
- LAI TAK SHING v. DIRECTOR OF HOME AFFAIRS
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL82/2003
The court found on the evidence that Tsing Yi Hui was not an indigenous village within the meaning of Cap.576, that the Secretary's decision of 18 July 2003 was correct and lawful, that consultation with the Rural Committee was proper and did not invalidate the decision, and that the applicant failed to establish indigenous inhabitant status or sufficient interest; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
6 Feb 2001
CHUNG YING KWAI v. TSUEN WAN RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- CHUNG YING KWAI v. TSUEN WAN RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL2485/2000
The court dismissed the 2nd respondent's summons to set aside the earlier grant of leave because no affidavit supported the summons, the question of delay had already been addressed and could be raised at the substantive judicial review, and relisting the matter to May 2001 would cause undue further delay; therefore the appropriate course was to refuse the summons and grant the applicant a short period to serve and file the notice of motion.
26 Jan 2000
CHAN WAH v. HANG HAU RURAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
- Citation
- CHAN WAH v. HANG HAU RURAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV139/1999
Village representative elections are public affairs because of the public role of village representatives, statutory structure (Heung Yee Kuk), and active governmental involvement; exclusion of non-indigenous permanent residents from voting or standing in their village elections was unlawful as inconsistent with ICCPR Article 25 (Bill of Rights Article 21) and Basic Law Article 26 and, in the respects identified, contravened s.35 Sex Discrimination Ordinance; Secretary for Home Affairs (via District Officers) must consider these legal obligations before approving election results; accordingly…
26 Jan 2000
CHAN WAH v. HANG HAU RURAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
- Citation
- CHAN WAH v. HANG HAU RURAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV137/1999
Village representative elections are public affairs because District Offices and the Secretary for Home Affairs play a substantive role; exclusion of non-indigenous villagers from voting or candidature lacks lawful justification and breaches ICCPR/Bill of Rights (Article 21/25) as incorporated by Basic Law Article 39 and Basic Law Article 26, and certain election arrangements also breach s.35 of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance; accordingly the declarations below were justified and the appeals are dismissed (with the re-election order in one case set aside).
26 Jan 2000
TSE KWAN SANG v. PAT HEUNG RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- TSE KWAN SANG v. PAT HEUNG RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV278/1999
The Court held that elections of village representatives are public affairs given governmental involvement and the political role of village representatives; therefore ICCPR Article 25 (via Bill of Rights/Basic Law Article 39) and Basic Law Article 26 apply. Excluding non-indigenous villagers from voting or standing in village elections, and the sex/marital status distinctions identified, were unlawful and discriminatory (including contrary to Sex Discrimination Ordinance s.35). The Secretary for Home Affairs (and District Officers) must ensure approval of successful candidates is exercised c…
26 Jan 2000
TSE KWAN SANG v. PAT HEUNG RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- TSE KWAN SANG v. PAT HEUNG RURAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV279/1999
Village representative elections in the New Territories are public affairs for the purposes of the ICCPR/Bill of Rights and Basic Law because of the public role of village representatives, the active involvement of District Offices and the Secretary for Home Affairs approval power; exclusion of non-indigenous permanent residents from voting or candidacy in village elections, and electoral arrangements that differentiate by sex or marital status, are unlawful because they contravene the ICCPR rights incorporated by Article 39 of the Basic Law (Article 21/25), Basic Law Article 26 and s.35 of t…