Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of discretion

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2018

CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD v. ZHANG JIE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 94
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2249/2016

Even assuming the Socimer duty applied, there was no evidence to demonstrate the plaintiff's exercise of contractual discretion was dishonest, an abuse, fraudulent or so perverse that no rational person could have acted as it did; the defendant's evidence was tenuous and conclusory and the contractual terms expressly limited challenges to timing and manner of disposals; accordingly no prima facie case of breach was made out and the appeal failed.
20 Sept 2010

KINCO INVESTMENT HOLDING LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

KINCO INVESTMENT HOLDING LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL91/2009

DIPN 6 is a lawful policy guide and the Assistant Commissioner did not abuse his wide discretion under s.71(2) IRO by ordering a conditional holdover requiring purchase of TRCs; there was no procedural unfairness because the Assistant Commissioner considered the facts available at the time and the court will not assess the merits of the underlying objection on judicial review.
13 Jun 2006

CHENG SUK YEE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

Citation

CHENG SUK YEE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2006

The OZP is a guide only under s.13 TPO and does not automatically remove the Commissioner’s discretion under AGCO s.5(4)(b)(ii); the AGC Appeal Board’s unvacated order stands and the Commissioner erred in law by refusing to issue the licence on planning grounds discovered after the Appeal Board decision; absent exceptional circumstances (eg fraud) a statutory tribunal’s decision cannot be reopened by after‑thoughts of a public officer; mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with the Appeal Board order.
18 Oct 2004

INTERASIA BAG MANUFACTURERS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

INTERASIA BAG MANUFACTURERS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2003

The application was dismissed because the Commissioner lawfully exercised his duty to collect tax based on the material before him; the applicant failed to disclose critical facts (notably that it had become dormant and had declared substantial dividends), did not establish a clear binding representation creating a substantive legitimate expectation, and was offered instalment remedies so the decisions did not unlawfully deny practical access to tribunals.
14 Apr 1972

NG MAU-KAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

NG MAU-KAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC245/1972

The increase of the fine from $1,000 to $2,000 was arbitrary and an abuse of the magistrate's discretion because it was made without stated grounds or additional evidence; the appellate court reduced the obstruction fine to $200 as proportionate and upheld the $100 hawking fine.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD v. ZHANG JIE

KINCO INVESTMENT HOLDING LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

CHENG SUK YEE v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

INTERASIA BAG MANUFACTURERS LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

NG MAU-KAN v. THE QUEEN