23 Feb 2026
HKSAR v. WONG JI YUET
- Citation
- [2026] HKCA 284
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC263/2024
[2026] HKCA 284
Hong Kong Case Law
Case stated procedure
27 May 2025
HKSAR v. SO TSUN FUNG
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 2466
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA457/2023
The application for a certificate was dismissed because the proposed constitutional challenges to section 27A ECICO were not reasonably arguable nor of great and general importance given the clear legitimate aim to protect electoral integrity in the unique historical and legislative context, the rational connection and proportionality of the Provision (limited to election period, public activities and containing defences), and the appropriate deference to legislative judgment and the NPC Decision.
3 Nov 2021
KWP QUARRY CO LTD v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 1627
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV256/2017
The proposed question was not a proper question of law because it was insufficiently specific and amounted to a disguised challenge to factual findings; the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success that the Board's conclusion was the only reasonable conclusion on the facts; therefore the Board was entitled to refuse to state a case and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
30 Mar 2021
TSE SUM PING v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
- Citation
- [2021] HKDC 379
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCSA2/2020
The District Court has jurisdiction under Order 20 r.8(1) RDC to order amendment of documents including a Case Stated, but on the facts the Case Stated prepared by the Collector was adequate to frame the issue for appeal (whether the appellant can prove she acted on her own behalf under s.29CB(2)), and the appellant bears the burden of proof so the Collector was not required to identify third parties; therefore the appellant\u2019s application to compel revision of the Case Stated failed and was dismissed.
4 Oct 2019
NGAI SAU YING v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 1104
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV460/2018
The Court held that, having regard to the Court Order and its judgment and the surrounding circumstances, the two assignments formed part of one package effectuating an exchange under s25(7) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance; equality consideration of HKD 100,000 arose from the overall distribution ordered by the court at the date of the order; only the principal instrument effecting the equality consideration (Assignment A transferring the more valuable property) is chargeable and stamp duty at Scale 1 (1.5%) on HKD 100,000 is HKD 1,500; Assignment B is not chargeable; the Court of Appeal answered…
4 Oct 2019
HUNG IP SHING v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 1104
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV461/2018
The Court held that the assignments, executed to implement a matrimonial court order as an integrated package to achieve substantial equality, were in substance an exchange under s25(7) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance; equality consideration of HK$100,000 (as fixed at the date of the court order) governed the charge, the principal instrument was the assignment effecting transfer of the more valuable property (Assignment A) and stamp duty of 1.5% on HK$100,000 (HK$1,500) was payable on that principal instrument; the other assignment (Assignment B) was not chargeable; the Court answered the Case St…
5 Jun 2019
WONG SUET FOON SHIRLY 對 COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
- Citation
- [2019] HKDC 759
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCSA5/2016
The court refused permission to appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the central issue that the Family Agreement and Assent instrument were not subject to ad valorem stamp duty; the statutory text (Stamp Duty Ordinance) and binding authorities support that the instruments are taxable and liabilities or alleged top‑ups do not reduce the dutiable value, and the appellant's relied authorities were inapposite or not binding.
4 Jun 2019
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HONG DAU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFA 20
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC7/2019
Leave to appeal was refused because, on a purposive construction of reg 38E, 'immediate supervision' requires a competent person who is not at the time actively engaged in scaffold erection and is free to supervise the scaffold and scaffolders; the applicants' argument that scaffolders engaged in erection may supervise each other (or that supervision must be one-on-one) was not reasonably arguable.
7 Sept 2018
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HONG DAU CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 2039
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA499/2017
The High Court held that a competent person who is personally engaged in erecting high external scaffolding and whose attention is principally occupied by his own dangerous work cannot, as a matter of fact, be treated as providing the statutory 'immediate supervision' required by reg 38E CSSR for another scaffolder; the magistrate's contrary conclusions were perverse on the uncontested evidence, so the acquittals were reversed, convictions entered and the matter remitted for mitigation and sentence.
2 Feb 2018
SANFORCE LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
- Citation
- [2018] HKDC 136
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCSA4/2012
The court is bound by Bangkok Capital Antique to hold it has no jurisdiction to extend the 7-day period in SDO s14(2); HKBOR Article 10 does not extend to tax assessment procedures and Basic Law Article 35 is not infringed because judicial review remains available as an alternative remedy; accordingly the appeals cannot proceed and must be struck out; in any event discretionary extension would be refused due to long unexplained delay and prejudice to the Collector.