Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretion of public authority

Legal area

Court

27 May 2016

NG KA CHEUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG KA CHEUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL109/2015

Applicants failed to prove a clear and unambiguous representation or policy giving rise to a legitimate expectation; the Scheme is discretionary with quotas and allocation rules fixed by HA/HD via CM and does not permit consideration of individual personal circumstances in allocation; the alleged representation was unreasonable and unworkable; therefore certiorari was refused and the judicial review applications dismissed.
2 Dec 2014

YUNG CHI KEUNG v. PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY FUND BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUNG CHI KEUNG v. PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY FUND BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/2014

Section 16(1) of Cap 380 must be construed to require the Commissioner to use as the starting point either the s31G severance figure or the capped amount computed under s16(2)(f)(i), whichever is less, and then deduct any s31I benefits (eg MPF) to arrive at the ex gratia payment; the Commissioner does not have a general unfettered discretion to determine the quantum beyond that statutory formula.
2 Jul 2014

JA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

JA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV10/2013

The order nisi that there should be no order as to costs was made absolute because the appellants were justified in raising the IDT point which required determination by the Court and, had the matter proceeded to the necessary fact finding, the applicants might have achieved a different outcome; accordingly it was inappropriate simply to apply the 'costs follow the event' rule where the IDT point necessitated further inquiry.
10 Jun 1998

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/1998

Regulation 9 validly permits the Commissioner to determine the renewal form; the questions asked were relevant to statutory criteria of fitness and legitimate need; the applicant’s refusal to complete the authorised form justified the Commissioner’s refusal to renew and cancellation, so there was no basis for leave to judicially review and the appeal is dismissed.
15 Jun 1995

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG

Citation

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/1995

Clause 12(a) is clear and self-contained and empowered the Director of Environmental Protection to require the implementation of such ameliorative measures as he deemed necessary (including a noise barrier); the Government Guidelines did not fetter that power nor create a binding 'reasonable businessman' expectation; the DEP's power was not spent by earlier proposals; estoppel and legitimate expectation were not established; and Wednesbury review was not properly invoked in these originating summons proceedings without leave, so the appeal must be allowed and the judge's declaration set aside.
20 Mar 1995

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3322/1994

The clause must be interpreted against the 1988 factual background and applicable Guidelines; the words 'as deemed necessary' do not permit the Director to insist on any works without regard to reasonableness; because the developer's acoustic treatments met the Guidelines the Director was not entitled to require construction of the large noise barrier or to withhold consent on that basis.

Hong Kong Case Law

NG KA CHEUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

YUNG CHI KEUNG v. PROTECTION OF WAGES ON INSOLVENCY FUND BOARD AND ANOTHER

JA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG

SECAN LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL