Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equality before the law

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

HKSAR v. SO TSUN FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA457/2023

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the proposed constitutional challenges to section 27A ECICO were not reasonably arguable nor of great and general importance given the clear legitimate aim to protect electoral integrity in the unique historical and legislative context, the rational connection and proportionality of the Provision (limited to election period, public activities and containing defences), and the appropriate deference to legislative judgment and the NPC Decision.
3 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. SO TSUN FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA457/2023

Section 27A is a law of sufficient certainty and accessibility and pursues the legitimate aim of protecting electoral integrity under ECICO and the NPC Decision; the prohibition is temporally and contextually confined to public activity during election periods, is rationally connected to preventing manipulation of elections, is no more than reasonably necessary given available defences and legislative context and strikes a reasonable balance; the equality challenge fails because the comparator activities are materially different and any differential treatment is justified.
10 Feb 2025

香港特別行政區訴鄒幸彤

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC155/2022

The s144 amendment to s79I is constitutionally valid because it pursues legitimate objectives of protecting national security and judicial fairness, applies equally to prosecution and defence in national security proceedings (so no unlawful discrimination), and is a proportionate and limited restriction on the discretionary mechanism for remote testimony; accordingly the court will not declare the amendment invalid and refuses the applicant's TV‑link application.
3 Nov 2023

SINO MORAL LTD v. MAGISTRATE WAT LAI MAN MINNIE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2811
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1078/2023

Leave refused because the applicant relied on an irrelevant and unparticularised Basic Law provision; there was no evidence of a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; the Magistrate's refusal was reasonable (not Wednesbury unreasonable); the Department of Justice had already declined prosecution making the exercise futile; and the repeated identical application amounted to abuse of process warranting refusal and costs.
17 Oct 2023

INFINGER, NICK v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1178
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2020

Court held HA Spousal Policies constitute differential treatment based on sexual orientation and are unlawful under BL25/BOR22 because HA failed to justify them under the four-step proportionality test: the measures lacked sufficient rational connection (HOS) and the HA produced no reliable evidence that exclusion materially advanced the asserted Family Aim or was necessary; BL36/37/145 arguments and administrative efficiency/coherence defenses did not justify the discrimination.
24 Jun 2022

莊裕安對終審法院及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 883
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2021

The Court refused the applicant's one‑day out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal and declined to extend time because the delay was minimal but the proposed appeal did not raise issues of serious general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b) and the recusal/equality allegations lacked merit; accordingly the motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
9 Nov 2021

郭卓堅 v. 民政事務局局長徐英偉先生及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1440/2021

Leave refused because the Court of Final Appeal in Kwok Cheuk Kin held that Basic Law Article 40 qualifies and limits anti-discrimination provisions and that traditional indigenous rights (as relevant) can validate exemptions; the CFA explicitly referenced section 36(1)(c), rendering the proposed constitutional challenge under BL25/BL8 not reasonably arguable and thus failing the leave threshold.
22 Jun 2018

CHUNG CHIU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1421
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL69/2014

[2018] HKCFI 1421
17 Jan 2017

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as “LONG HAIR” v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

LEUNG KWOK HUNG also known as “LONG HAIR” v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL109/2014

The court held SO 41-05 and the Decision constitute direct sex discrimination under section 5 of the SDO and are unlawful under section 38 because the standing order imposes less favourable treatment on male prisoners solely on the basis of sex; reliance on generalized or stereotyped assumptions about male prisoners is insufficient to avoid liability and the statutory necessity defence under section 38(2)(b) was rejected; accordingly a declaration of unlawfulness was ordered with implementation deferred to allow the Commissioner to respond.
29 Sept 2016

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

Citation

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV13/2016

Leave to appeal was granted because the single question whether section 39(2A) of the Legislative Council Ordinance is inconsistent with Article 26 of the Basic Law and/or Article 21 of the Bill of Rights raises an issue of great general or public importance that warrants determination by the Court of Final Appeal.