Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equality and non-discrimination

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2025

K (AN INFANT) BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, R v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1974
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2063/2023

The court held that the statutory scheme and the Registrar's refusal to re-register the birth so as to record the genetic non-gestational parent in the RIVF family engaged the applicant's BOR and Basic Law rights and that the Government failed to establish a legitimate aim and rational connection sufficient to justify the differential treatment under the Hysan proportionality analysis. Guardianship was not an adequate practical substitute for statutory recognition on the birth register. The constitutional challenge was therefore made good; precise remedial orders were reserved for further sub…
14 May 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI YIK HO

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2024

The Permanent Judge held that the applicants for adjournment did not demonstrate sufficiently cogent grounds to re‑fix the hearing dates; lack of availability of preferred leading counsel (Lord Pannick KC), even in complex public law matters, is not by itself a strong and cogent reason to vacate fixed Court of Final Appeal dates and the parties could seek alternative competent counsel; accordingly the summonses to adjourn were dismissed and the originally fixed hearing dates were maintained.
14 May 2024

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LI YIK HO

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/2024

The summonses to re-fix the appeal hearing dates were dismissed because the non-availability of a preferred leading counsel (Lord Pannick KC) did not constitute a sufficiently strong and cogent reason to vacate court-fixed dates, the respondents had not shown efforts to secure alternative equivalent counsel or that lack of that particular counsel would cause injustice, and prejudice to applicants did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the court's allocated hearing schedule.
26 Feb 2024

NG HON LAM EDGAR v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 184
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV558/2020

The Court granted leave because the questions raised are of great general or public importance, are inter-dependent, bear directly or indirectly on the constitutionality and lawfulness of the intestacy scheme under the IEO and IPO, and the grounds of appeal cannot be said to be unarguable; consequential orders as to costs were made.
24 Oct 2023

NG HON LAM EDGAR v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1224
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV558/2020

The Court of Appeal (Cheung JA, Yuen JA, Au JA) upheld the finding that the IEO and IPO definitions excluding spouses of foreign same-sex marriages effect differential treatment on the prohibited ground of sexual orientation; same-sex marriages lawfully performed abroad are relevantly comparable and the exclusion is not rationally connected to the legitimate aims advanced by the Government; the differential treatment is unjustified and unlawful discrimination, so the appeal is dismissed and the lower court order stands (including remedial interpretation and declaratory relief).
17 Oct 2023

NG HON LAM EDGAR v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1178
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV362/2021

The Court dismissed the HA’s appeals and affirmed the lower courts: married same‑sex couples in valid foreign marriages are proper comparators to opposite‑sex married couples for the purposes of PRH and HOS spousal eligibility; the HA’s Spousal Policies amount to differential treatment on the prohibited ground of sexual orientation and the HA failed to justify that differential treatment under the four‑step test (insufficient evidence of material benefit to the 'Family Aim', absence of rational connection in the HOS context, and lack of necessity); BL36/BL37/BL145 do not exclude review under…
5 Sept 2023

SHAM TSZ KIT (岑子杰) v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 28
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/2022

The Court unanimously held Questions 1 and 3 fail because BL37 read with BOR19(2) is a lex specialis guaranteeing marriage as an opposite-sex institution, so equality provisions cannot be construed to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or to recognition of foreign same-sex marriages. By majority the Court held BOR14 engages and can impose a positive obligation: the absence of any legal recognition of stable same-sex relationships constitutes an arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy and family and thus the Government is in breach of its positive obligation to establis…
4 Jan 2021

香港特別行政區訴張錦輝

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 23
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA90/2019

The application for a certificate was refused because the court concluded the contested legal points were previously considered and rejected in the judge's earlier judgment, the applicant merely re‑argued those conclusions without raising a new, reasonably arguable point of law of broad and general public importance, and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for a certificate under s32(2) CFAO; the impugned provisions are not shown to be unconstitutional on the material before the court.
4 Jan 2019

RE LEUNG KWAN TSAN KELVIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 20
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB11341/2002

Court was bound by the Court of Appeal in Re Ng Shiu Fan; the relevant statutory provisions vesting subsidized school provident fund benefits in the trustee are valid; s.85(5) is a legitimate non-retrospective provision justified by public policy and proportionality; differential treatment by date of bankruptcy does not engage protected status under ICCPR/Basic Law and is justified; equitable relief under Re Condon cannot displace the clear legislative scheme — therefore the applicant's amended summons is dismissed.
3 Aug 2018

NAVARRO LUIGI RECASA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL93/2015

The court held the detention placement in the male Vulnerable Prisoners Unit with protective single-cell and restricted association was lawful and not discriminatory or unconstitutional given the applicant's intact male genitalia and custodial safety duties; strip and cavity searches by male officers conducted under the applicable rules were lawful and proportionate in context and the contested provisions did not require reading down to permit searches exclusively by officers of the applicant's self‑identified gender; the applicant's claims were dismissed.