Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

LIMBU BINITA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL647/2026

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success: she had remained in Hong Kong without permission since 13 August 2025; the Director was entitled to refuse deferral and was under no duty to take humanitarian factors into account; there was no arguable illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, disproportionate interference or discrimination; and the matter was arguable as time‑barred or moot.
24 Mar 2026

ALI SHAHZAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1093/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to present any arguable grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety and the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were reasonable after an oral hearing and anxious scrutiny of the facts.
26 Jan 2026

中紀投資有限公司 CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LIMITED v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING and STL COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV88/2025

Leave to appeal was granted because the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the posed question — whether and in what circumstances waiver or acquiescence can curtail or excuse the statutory duty under s.18(1)(c) BMO, apart from DMC breaches involving illegality — raises a question of requisite legal importance for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
12 Jan 2026

GOING BRIGHT LTD v. ZHU HUAYUE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1603/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the 2010 sale and 2011 assignment were sham transactions: the purchase funds principally derived from GB/Gladstrong and an advancement by Wang; title deeds and possession remained with GB/LI; Zhu was aware of and accepted the arrangements (including by signing the Letter of Undertaking) and therefore was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly Zhu holds legal title as bare trustee for GB and equitable relief (declaration and transfer order) is granted; the illegality argument does not bar relief on the facts and applying…
28 May 2025

陳覺威對上訴委員會（房屋）

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2420/2024

Leave refused because the supporting affidavit was conclusory, the transcript and recordings showed the appeal committee conducted a proper hearing and asked reasonable questions to assess continuous residence, the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error or procedural unfairness, and the proposed judicial review had no prospect of success.
6 Mar 2025

TSE MAN YIU AND OTHERS v. TSE MAN WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 967
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2557/2017

Application to amend to plead illegality was refused (save for two clerical amendments) because the proposed amendment was extremely late with no adequate explanation, the illegality case was doubtful on its face (lacked pleaded dishonesty, causation and particulars and relied on public‑policy breach insufficient to establish illegality under Monat Investment and relevant authority), and allowing it would cause real prejudice to Plaintiffs that could not be adequately compensated by costs.
2 Jan 2025

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2025] HKDC 17
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Summons dismissed: time to serve was not abridged because urgency was self-induced; on merits the alleged illegality was neither pleaded with necessary considerations under Monat nor of sufficient gravity to render the long-stay agreement unenforceable (would be overkill), so no stay of execution; director Ms Yung joined for potential personal costs and directed to file evidence and attend a substantive costs hearing.
29 Dec 2023

TSANG WING WAI MICHAEL v. SUNLINK COMMERCIAL LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3368
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2407/2019

The court held the Plaintiff's New Amendments served one day before the hearing were procedurally defective and materially different such that the Defendant was not given a fair opportunity to respond; no abridgement of time had been sought or justified; the proper course was to adjourn the Defendant's strike out summons to allow the Plaintiff to bring a proper summons to amend and for the Defendant to respond. Accordingly the Plaintiff's earlier Amendment Summons was dismissed and the strike out application was adjourned with costs reserved.
30 Jun 2023

UMERZAI ABDULHAFIZ ZAHUR v. MASSIE & CLEMENT SOLICITORS (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKDC 889
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ562/2023

The court refused to determine the enforceability of the alleged agreement under O.14A because the question of enforceability (applying the range of factors for illegality) is interwoven with disputed factual matters that are not fully before the court; accordingly the O.14A application and the alternative strike-out under O.18 r.19 were refused and the claim was not struck out.
8 May 2023

AI AND OTHERS v. LG II AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1183
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT69/2022

The application to set aside the arbitral Award was dismissed because the Court found the Tribunal had considered and decided the principal issues (foreign and domestic illegality, misrepresentation, contractual breaches, and events of default) with reasons that a reasonable party could discern in context; the Plaintiffs had a fair opportunity to present their case; the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in determining Events of Default under the Notes; and alleged legal errors or disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions do not justify setting aside under Model Law Article 34 or on pu…