Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accrued rights

Legal area

Court

16 May 2025

FORTUNE CHANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL BOARD NOMINATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ORDINANCE CAP. 563

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1295/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Judge concluded none of the nine proposed grounds identified an arguable error of law with a realistic prospect of success: the Appeal Board correctly treated the appeal as de novo, exercised its discretion appropriately in framing issues by reference to the Amended Notice of Appeal, did not unlawfully restrict evidence or breach duties of disclosure or candour, adequately addressed material considerations (including timing of building plan approval, evidence of intent and financial capacity), applied the proportionality framework wit…
26 Jun 2020

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2020] HKCA 529
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP27/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because the questions whether the disciplinary proceedings qualify as a judicial tribunal whose findings would operate as res judicata and whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately account for the claimant’s accrued rights are reasonably arguable and justify appellate determination; accordingly leave must be given and directions provided for an early hearing.
3 Aug 1983

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

Citation

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1983

Order 20 rule 5(5) is ultra vires insofar as it purports to permit amendments introducing new causes of action that were already time‑barred because allowing such amendments would divest defendants of an accrued substantive right created by the Limitation Ordinance and exceed the Rule Committee's procedural rule‑making power and conflict with primary legislation.
30 Jul 1982

LEUNG CHUI YING v. CHOW SUI KWAN

Citation

LEUNG CHUI YING v. CHOW SUI KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV38/1982

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 53A was intended by necessary intendment to take immediate effect and therefore to apply to pending actions because the wording, present-tense construction, public interest purpose and compensatory scheme demonstrated such intent; the prior Court of Appeal decision in Ngai Sau-ying was not per incuriam nor determinative of this distinct question; the District Judge had erred in relying on Section 59(1) as bringing the matters within the Lands Tribunal without there being an appointed hearing date under the amending provisions.
7 Jun 1982

LEE LAI BING v. NG YU AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE LAI BING v. NG YU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ9812/1981

The amended s.53(2)(e) of Cap 7, as enacted by Ordinance No.76/81, must be applied to pending proceedings because the language and scheme of the amendment demonstrate a clear contrary intention to oust the preservation of accrued rights under Cap 1 s.23(c); consequently the court must require proof that subletting was in breach of the contractual tenancy and, as the plaintiff could not show such breach, the action is dismissed.
30 Oct 1975

WONG KWONG SHING t/a KA WAH MOTORS CO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WONG KWONG SHING t/a KA WAH MOTORS CO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP212/1975

Regulation 17A was held ultra vires and void for exceeding delegated authority and impinging on principles of natural justice; regulation 18B(2) was severable and treated as ultra vires, while regulation 18B paragraphs (1) and (3) are intra vires and valid; a Gazette notice under reg.18B(1) may lawfully limit registrations and may be applied to pending applications; where a limitation is relied on the applicant bears the evidential burden to show the limit had not been reached; here evidence established entitlement to registration of 34 of the 50 vehicles applied for.

Hong Kong Case Law

FORTUNE CHANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL BOARD NOMINATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ORDINANCE CAP. 563

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

LEUNG CHUI YING v. CHOW SUI KWAN

LEE LAI BING v. NG YU AND OTHERS

WONG KWONG SHING t/a KA WAH MOTORS CO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL