Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case stated

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. YEUNG SUET YING CLARISSE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 284
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC253/2024

On a purposive construction informed by NPC legislative materials, "other unlawful means" in NSL 22 encompasses all unlawful means other than force or threat of force and is not restricted to criminal offences; an honest belief in lawfulness is relevant evidence to mens rea but does not negate the specific intent required for NSL 22; the Scheme to obtain a LegCo majority to indiscriminately veto budgets in order to trigger BL50-52 consequences was an unlawful means and a prohibited Course of Conduct under NSL 22(3); LegCo members are bound by BL104 oath and cannot use constitutional powers to…
30 Oct 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. IP, ANTHONY CHUN HIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5043
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA51/2024

The court held that s64(6)(c) PDPO is properly construed to require only that the material disclosure caused the data subject reasonably to be concerned for his or her safety or well‑being (a single‑layer requirement), not the two‑layer interpretation imposed by the Magistrate; on rehearing the published posts together with contemporaneous hostile calls and conduct provided sufficient evidence that the appellant intended and caused the specified harms, so the appellant's challenge to the convictions failed and the prosecution's case stated appeal succeeded to substitute conviction on Charge 1…
15 Jul 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KO KIN MING

Citation

[2025] HKCA 674
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC47/2025

The court exercised its discretion under section 84 to grant an extension of time to the Secretary for Justice because the 17-day delay was not substantial, there was a point of law capable of being raised on a case stated (an alleged irrational acquittal), and the balancing of delay, reasons, merits/public interest and prejudice favored granting the extension; accordingly the Secretary for Justice may file the case stated out of time.
21 Mar 2025

律政司司長訴羅健熙

Citation

[2025] HKCA 294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC217/2022

The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's case‑stated appeal and upheld the acquittal of D6 because, although the trial judge's exposition of authority was imperfect, the acquittal relied on permissible factual findings and was not perverse; the court refused leave and dismissed D10's appeal because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the laser pointer and multitool were possessed with intent to be used as offensive weapons given the circumstances and inferences available to the trial judge.
10 Feb 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK TING MELISSA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC14/2023

The judge exercised the discretion under s.84(b) and refused to issue arrest warrants/alter bail because the case stated grounds were broadly formulated and effectively challenged factual credibility (not legal errors), the respondents’ defences had been accepted at trial and there was no clear and obvious legal error (perversity) to justify intervention, the offences were relatively low in gravity and respondents had complied with bail for a prolonged period, and issuing warrants or further restrictions would be unnecessary and disproportionate to preserve the status quo.
10 Feb 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW HIU FUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC13/2023

The judge refused the s.84(b) application because the proposed case stated was broadly framed and impermissibly amounted to a challenge to factual findings the trial judge was best placed to make; there was no clear and obvious error of law or realistic prospect of success, the respondents had complied with long‑standing bail conditions, the offences were at the lower end of gravity, and arrest or further restriction would be neither necessary nor proportionate to preserve the appeal.
14 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC238/2016

The application for extension of time was allowed because the principal cause of delay was fiat counsel's failure to spot the Deputy Judge's overlooked alternative verdict, the prosecution acted properly once on notice, the 14-day delay was not inordinate and there was no prejudice to the defendant; public interest justified permitting the late appeal.
18 Aug 2014

CHIT TZU YEN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHIT TZU YEN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1286/2014

None of the applicant's complaints established a matter of general or public importance: the Board had the employer's letter in the bundle and addressed the pension issue; alleged failure to apply Fuchs or bad faith was without merit; the applicant's remedy for Case Stated content was s69(4); accordingly leave under s69A was refused and the summons dismissed with a costs order.
4 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. GLOBAL MERCHANT FUNDING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. GLOBAL MERCHANT FUNDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA716/2013

The transfer was ordered because the issue involves a substantial point of law of public interest suitable for determination by the Court of Appeal; objections of delay were outweighed and can be managed by expedited listing; accordingly the appeal is transferred under section 118(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance and costs are reserved to the Court of Appeal.
30 Mar 2012

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE YEE SHING JACKY AND ANOTHER v. BOARD OF REVIEW (INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2011

Section 69’s case stated procedure does not infringe the applicants’ BL35 right of access to the courts; the Board of Review is Article 10 compliant and the combination of appeal by way of case stated, appeals on points of law and availability of judicial review provide adequate and proportionate judicial oversight such that no right to a general appeal on facts is required; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.