Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delegated legislation

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2022

郭卓堅 v. 政府醫衛局局長盧寵茂先生

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1054/2022

The court granted interim relief because there was a strong arguable case that the Secretary lacked power under Cap 599L/Cap 599F to invalidate specified medical exemption certificates, and on balancing the risk of injustice and public interest the preservation of the status quo pending a full hearing carried the lower risk of injustice; accordingly the Government was restrained from implementing the purported invalidation and associated Directions until further order.
27 Dec 2017

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2017

The Court held that the Telecommunications Ordinance does not permit inclusion of profit elements (including notional tax and dividends) in licence fee calculations; budgeting for intentional profits to be transferred to general revenue is ultra vires s7 of the TO, and the TFO does not authorize using its surplus provisions to expand the statutory power to impose fees beyond cost recovery; further contingency provision is unlawful absent a demonstrated real risk that existing reserves are inadequate.
11 Aug 2015

PCCW HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

PCCW HKT TELEPHONE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/2013

The court held the Decision to set the licence fee reduction to HK$700 per 100-customer connections was within the statutory powers of the Respondents under the TO and within the policy and purpose of the TFO; TFO expressly contemplates distributable surpluses and transfer to general revenue under Financial Secretary direction, and the fee decision involved permissible economic/policy judgment not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the judicial review failed.
24 Jun 2010

HKSAR v. ASADUZZAMAN

Citation

HKSAR v. ASADUZZAMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA314/2009

The Court refused to grant a certificate under s.32(2) Cap.484 because the applicant failed to establish that the proposed questions disclosed a point of law of great and general importance suitable for certification and because key constitutional arguments (ICCPR Article 26) were not properly placed before the Court; accordingly both certification questions were dismissed.
5 Nov 2007

LAI TAK SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI TAK SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2007

Section 67 does not empower the Secretary to add new indigenous villages to Schedule 2; the statutory power is confined to correcting errors and matters of detail within the legislative scheme which adopted the 1999 village list, and cannot be used to effect substantive expansion of constituencies; appeal dismissed.
6 Dec 2000

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1610/2000

The Court held that rule 255B was beyond the rule‑making power conferred by section 25 of the Prisons Ordinance and therefore null and void; consequently the Chief Executive's dismissal of the applicant under that rule was null and void and of no effect. Alternatively, even if rule 255B were valid, the Chief Executive's decision to dismiss was Wednesbury irrational and would be quashed and remitted for redetermination.
9 Jun 2000

RE SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION

Citation

RE SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP844/2000

Section 73 of the Registered Designs Rules authorises the Registrar to grant discretionary extensions of time for first renewal applications made under s75 read with s92 of the Ordinance; the Registrar's refusal on the basis that no such power exists was erroneous and the court set aside the decision and granted an extension to 10 January 2000, applying treaty‑consistent construction with Article 5bis of the Paris Convention.
8 Jun 2000

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV279/1998

The Court refused leave to appeal because none of the three points raised were appropriate for reference to the Court of Final Appeal: s13(1) raises an important issue but should be decided in a substantive case fit for the Court of Final Appeal; the comments on solicitors acting for both parties were obiter and not a basis for leave; and the general question whether delegated powers can limit the scope of the parent power is answered negatively and, in any event, did not arise on the facts. Accordingly leave was refused with costs.
29 Mar 1999

AGRILA LTD. AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

AGRILA LTD. AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA42/1998

Section 2 of the Rent Regulations is to be construed as permitting the Commissioner to ascertain rateable value for government rent in the quantum sense applying rating valuation principles while disregarding the question of rateable occupation; the contractor's test is not the sole method of valuation and valuation assumptions should treat development sites as vacant building sites in their actual state; the developer's present intention to develop is irrelevant; sections 4 and 5 of the Rent Regulations are ultra vires and void to the extent that they adopt the 'last ascertained rateable val…
1 Feb 1996

NG ENTERPRISES LTD. v. THE URBAN COUNCIL

Citation

NG ENTERPRISES LTD. v. THE URBAN COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/1995

The Court held that the remaining question—whether s83A empowered the Urban Council by by-law to render itinerant hawking illegal—is a question of great general or public importance under Rule 2(b) of the 1909 Order in Council, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.