Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disqualification order

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

RE KAN LAP KEE (also known as “TERRY KAN”)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2529/2025

The ex-parte originating summons was dismissed because the applicant brought misconceived fresh ex-parte proceedings; if leave is required it must be sought in HCMP 1754/2024 (the DQ Order proceedings) or the applicant may file evidence in his personal capacity with clear statements/exhibits or join the HCB proceedings as an interested party, and any fresh application to vary or obtain leave must include the Official Receiver who obtained the DQ Order.
26 Aug 2025

HKSAR v. PARDEEP SINGH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA481/2024

The magistrate correctly applied s4(2)(a) Cap.272 and, in the absence of any special reasons advanced by the appellant, the minimum statutory disqualification of 12 months was proper; on the appellant's death the court exercised its discretion to terminate and abate the appeal and therefore the appeal does not proceed.
19 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KA ON

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1191
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC120/2024

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the overall 4-year sentence was manifestly excessive due to potential double counting of enhancements for previous convictions leading to an inflated notional starting point, while the starting points for individual offences and the disqualification order were not themselves plainly unreasonable.
14 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴申永健

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1039
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA464/2021

Given the appellant drove at not less than 126 km/h (exceeding the limit by over 45 km/h), offered no special reasons to displace mandatory provisions, and had relevant antecedents, the court correctly applied statutory mandatory minimums and discretionary considerations and found the 8‑month disqualification and driving improvement course order lawful and not manifestly excessive.
30 Oct 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION 對 FUNGS E&M ENGINEERING CO LTD 及另八人

Citation

[2020] HKCT 9
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2019

The 9th Respondent fell within s103(2)(b): although he did not directly cause the breach he had reasonable grounds to suspect his company's conduct and failed to take steps to prevent or correct it; balancing the mitigating factors (early admission, cooperation, age, limited literacy and private company) the appropriate disqualification period is two years reduced by two months, resulting in a final order of one year ten months ending 30 August 2022.
28 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. EJIOBU LAZARUS

Citation

HKSAR v. EJIOBU LAZARUS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA334/2016

The magistrate's starting points for each offence, the one-third reduction for guilty pleas and the decision to run custodial sentences concurrently were within principled sentencing bounds based on precedent and the facts; there were no valid grounds to disturb the sentences, so the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
15 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. WONG MUN MING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MUN MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC130/2015

The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the disqualification from 6 years to 5 years because the sentencing judge placed undue weight on achieving a post-release effect close to the statutory minimum rather than focusing on the appellant's culpability; given the appellant's intermediate culpability, isolated nature of the error and the 20-month prison term, a 5-year disqualification was proportionate and properly preventative.
6 Mar 2014

香港特別行政區訴葉富倫

Citation

香港特別行政區訴葉富倫
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA795/2013

Because one of the offences contributing to the 16 demerit points was subsequently withdrawn by the police, the statutory threshold for making a 3‑month disqualification order under s.8(3)(a) no longer existed; therefore the disqualification order was quashed.
6 Jun 2013

HKSAR v. BOUILLON, ATTIS CLAYTON

Citation

HKSAR v. BOUILLON, ATTIS CLAYTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA262/2013

The magistrate properly applied s4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance Cap 272; no special reasons existed to avoid the mandatory disqualification, the appellant's plea was informed and the motorcycle was properly characterised as 'in use', therefore the 12 month disqualification was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
21 Aug 2008

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. STEVEN TODD KRAUSE

Citation

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. STEVEN TODD KRAUSE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP531/2008

The court was satisfied on the evidence (including prior removal orders and the Official Receiver's reports) that the respondent committed multiple, persistent and serious breaches of his statutory duties as liquidator, ignored court orders and failed to cooperate; these breaches justified the exercise of discretion to make a disqualification order for protection of the public and governance of insolvency administration; a six‑year disqualification was appropriate applying the established bracket guidance; the disqualification takes effect from the beginning of the 21st day after the order.