Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Constitutional rights

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2023

葉黎穩對香港政府 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 661
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL227/2023

The permission application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific statutory provisions, did not provide any adequate justification for extension of time, advanced no legal or factual basis for alleged Basic Law breaches or for the large damages claim, and the proposed judicial review disclosed no arguable ground; accordingly leave was refused.
23 Sept 2019

RE SHARMA RAHUL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2018

The court framed its reasoning around established judicial review principles — legality, rationality (Wednesbury) and proportionality — assessing whether the impugned decision fell within lawful discretion; the provided text does not disclose the court's final dispositive conclusion.
20 May 2019

RE MASNAH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1064
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL712/2018

The court applied established common law principles of judicial review, focusing on legality and procedural fairness in assessing the impugned administrative decision.
20 May 2019

RE LAMA BIKASH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL247/2018

[2019] HKCFI 851
- Judicial review
- Constitutional rights
7 May 2019

RE RAHMAN MAJIBAR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL151/2017

The court applied established judicial review principles—illegality, irrationality and procedural fairness—to assess whether the applicant had arguable grounds and standing to challenge the administrative decision.
- Judicial review leave
- Constitutional rights
5 Feb 2016

PETER AR FU LAM v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

PETER AR FU LAM v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2878/2015

The Court refused leave because the applicant's submissions merely re-ran previously rejected points, were misconceived and unmeritorious, and failed to satisfy the s.22(1)(b) threshold of great/general/public importance.

Hong Kong Case Law

葉黎穩 對 香港政府 [Decision on Leave Application]

RE SHARMA RAHUL

RE MASNAH

RE LAMA BIKASH

RE RAHMAN MAJIBAR

PETER AR FU LAM v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

葉黎穩對香港政府 [Decision on Leave Application]