Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Access to courts

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2025

梁偉珍對中海物業集團有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP885/2025

Claimant failed to prove that the defendant employed or was responsible for the security personnel, failed to establish that the PRC Constitution applied in Hong Kong, and failed to show any infringement of rights implemented by the Bill of Rights Ordinance or any causative loss; the evidence (videos and affidavit) did not prove denial of access or psychiatric injury on the balance of probabilities, therefore all causes of action failed and the claim is dismissed with costs to be paid by the claimant.
6 Mar 2023

KWOK CHEUK-KIN v. MR. YUNG CHUN CHIU, PETER BRANCH MANAGER OF CMB WING LUNG BANK

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL147/2023

The application was dismissed because the termination of the bank account was a private contractual/commercial decision by a private bank (invoking its General Conditions) and therefore not amenable to judicial review; the applicant produced no evidence of a public law or political motive, and he had adequate private law remedies and time to address the practical hardship.
21 Apr 2021

“K” v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 523
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2020

There is no free-standing common law right for a data subject to obtain copies of search warrants on demand; the non-production of the warrants did not impair the essence of the applicant's right of access to courts under BL 35 because legal avenues (application to set aside the warrants, judicial review, discovery in proceedings) were available; and the proposed BOR 14 privacy challenge was a new, fact- and evidence-sensitive point not properly raised below and thus could not be entertained on appeal. Appeal dismissed.
23 Sept 2020

WONG CHI FUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL346/2020

Applicant's challenge to the Returning Officer's decision was properly characterised as questioning an 'election' within s49 of the DCO because nomination is part of the election process; consistent authority establishes that such challenges must be pursued by election petition and not by judicial review; election petition provides an adequate remedy and s49 is not unconstitutional for rendering judicial review unavailable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
17 Jan 2019

INTERUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 70
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2015

The Court held that section 25 OSCO does not itself engage Articles 6/105 property rights but the practical effect of the s 25A consent/no‑consent regime engages property rights; however, the consent regime as applied in this case is not unconstitutional: the statutory scheme and Police procedures (including internal Manual safeguards and common law controls) are not 'manifestly without reasonable foundation' and the withholding of consent in the applicants' case was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the 'prescribed by law' argument was not permitted to be raised for the first time on appeal; the…
16 Oct 2014

陳碩謙對醫院管理局

Citation

陳碩謙對醫院管理局
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2012

Section 69(2) pursues a legitimate aim and is rationally connected to that aim but the statutory threshold "substantial ground for the contention" goes beyond what is necessary; s69(2) is to be read down so that the leave threshold becomes whether there is a "reasonably arguable ground" (akin to Chan Po Fun). Proceedings commenced without leave are irregular rather than automatic nullities and can be regularised by subsequent grant of leave; consequently the appellant's claim should not have been struck out and the matter is remitted to the Court of First Instance (HCMP 1096/2012) to determin…
11 Jul 2013

RE HO CHUN YAN ALBERT

Citation

RE HO CHUN YAN ALBERT
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2013

Court held that ss 32 and 33 must be read together: s33 persons challenging on s32(1)(a) or (b) grounds can only do so by election petition; non-s33 persons may still challenge whether a declared Chief Executive can lawfully assume office by judicial review (subject to standing and leave); s34(1)'s seven-day non-extendable limit does not impair the essence of the Article 35 right and is constitutional; accordingly Mr Ho's election petition was time-barred and should be struck out; the costs order of 28 September 2012 was set aside and replaced with no order as to costs (order nisi made for ap…
10 Jan 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV24/2012

The challenges to the election were not reasonably arguable and, in respect of the relied-on statements, plainly hopeless; therefore costs should follow the event and Mr Leung Chun Ying is entitled to the costs of the leave applications against Mr Albert Ho and Mr Leung Kwok Hung respectively, such costs to be taxed unless agreed; costs relating to the leave to appeal on the costs orders are to be in the cause of that appeal.
10 Jan 2013

LEUNG CHUN YING v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG CHUN YING v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV26/2012

The court held the challenges were plainly without merit and ordered that costs should follow the event: Mr Leung is to recover the costs of the leave applications from Mr Albert Ho and Mr Leung Kwok Hung respectively, such costs to be taxed unless agreed; costs relating to the applicants' leave to appeal in respect of the costs orders made by Lam JA are to be in the cause of that appeal; academic questions do not affect entitlement to costs of the leave applications.
10 Jan 2013

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV32/2012

The Court held that the reliance on the core statements underlying the challenges was plainly hopeless; accordingly costs should follow the event and Mr C Y Leung is entitled to his costs of the leave applications, to be paid by Mr Albert Ho and Mr Leung Kwok Hung respectively and taxed unless agreed; costs of the specific leave application concerning costs are to be in the cause of that appeal.