17 Feb 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the refusal of a stay is not a final decision and there exists an available alternative remedy by way of appeal under s.113 Magistrates Ordinance (Cap.227), rendering an application for leave for judicial review inappropriate.
31 Mar 2022
The application was dismissed because the Board had no record of the alleged decision (it did not exist), the applicant had not availed himself of the available appeal remedies within the prescribed 14-day period for earlier notices, and the present proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were not bona fide.
21 Nov 2019
The application for judicial review against the Director's Decisions is dismissed because, following appellate structure as explained in Re: Moshsin Ali, an immigration officer's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued; leave is granted against the Board's Decisions because the Board incorrectly treated itself as precluded from considering the merits when deciding whether to allow late filing under s.37ZT and thereby failed to exercise the required discretion.
22 Feb 2011
The Board of Review performs an administrative function and does not exercise the judicial power of the HKSAR; the combination of the case stated appeal mechanism and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court by way of judicial review provides adequate access to courts under Article 35; the case stated procedure is not unconstitutional and the applicants' prior appeals were valid and binding, so the judicial review application must be dismissed.
15 Oct 2001
Although the Appeals Board had the power to re-hear and substitute its own decision, its written decision indicated undue deference to the Licensing Board and an insufficient exercise of the statutory discretion to assess whether the 11.00 p.m. condition was reasonable; therefore the Appeals Board's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted board under s3 Cap.220.
2 Jun 1998
The Commissioner lawfully exercised the statutory power under s9 to suspend the licence; there was no jurisdictional error or unfair truncation of appeal rights on these facts; the suspension was not Wednesbury unreasonable; and the Appeal Board's reasons were adequate; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed.
22 Sept 1984
Appeal dismissed because uncontested documentary and sample evidence proved breach of the permit conditions (use of fuel with sulphur content above the 0.5% limit and initial noncompliant chimney height), the appellant failed to remediate despite warnings and ample time, modification to use compliant fuel was feasible and short-term, and the Authority lawfully exercised its powers under section 30; stay refused and no costs awarded pursuant to section 33(6).
26 Jun 1980
Where on the date the landlord seeks possession the premises are being used primarily for non-domestic purposes, s.51(2)(b) deems the tenancy non-domestic so Part II does not apply; consequently where the rateable value exceeds $15,000 the action is properly brought in the High Court and the registrar's dismissal was wrong.
18 Apr 1977
Although no definitive impropriety was proved, the court found that the applicant had been effectively deprived of his right to appeal and that his plea may have been vitiated by misunderstanding; certiorari is available where a plea is not deliberate or where there has been a breach of natural justice; accordingly the convictions and orders were quashed and the applicant returned to the position at the point the charge was altered so the magistrate may proceed afresh.