Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review amenability

Legal area

Court

22 May 2024

張伯如 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1869/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants (save for Mr Cheung) lacked standing, the challenges were brought after inexcusable and substantial delay, the applicants failed to identify any specific and arguable public law wrong, and the Director's enforcement decisions concerning unauthorised occupation of Government land are land administration decisions not amenable to judicial review; cumulatively these defects meant no realistic prospect of success.
20 Sept 2023

DR. LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. CHEN HIU YIN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1220/2023

The decision to apply for the 2nd warrant was not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances; alternatively, even if amenable, there were no reasonably arguable public law grounds because the respondent had statutory power under s126(2) PHMSO, notice had been given, there were reasonable grounds based on prior investigations and tests, the magistrate did not err in granting the warrant, and there is no statutory obligation to disclose complainant identity or to organise mediation prior to applying for a warrant.
3 Jul 2023

LI CHIU WAH JOSEPH v. HONG KONG SOCIETY OF NOTARIES

Citation

[2023] HKCA 809
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV394/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused. The Court held that Cavendish establishes a unified legitimate-interest proportionality test which properly subsumes traditional pre-estimate/deterrent distinctions; the applicant failed to demonstrate that principle or its application in the CA Judgment raised an arguable question of GPI; the HK$3,000 Late Charge was not a penalty because it served a legitimate purpose (ensuring compliance with the Undertaking) and the amount was not out of all proportion; questions on amenability to judicial review and the advanced new point were not…
11 Aug 2022

張始文及另一人對沙螺洞發展有限公司 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL696/2022

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the suggested respondent is not a government department nor a statutory/public body amenable to judicial review and the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in Form 86 to state the reasons for seeking relief (Order 53 rule 3(2)(a)(iii)).
30 Jun 2022

LAU KWONG MAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1310/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the alleged decision not to apply for funding was not shown to be a decisive administrative act amenable to review, the HPR Tunnel had not been abandoned, the claimed representations did not give rise to a clear legitimate expectation, the substantive grounds were not reasonably arguable, and the application was delayed without good reason.
24 May 2013

CHAU TAM YUET CHING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHAU TAM YUET CHING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV170/2012

The Court held the cancellation of the Government Land Licences (the 1st Decision) was a commercial/private law decision governed by the terms of the licence and private law and therefore not amenable to judicial review; although s6 notices and other statutory eviction powers may be judicially reviewable, the applicant raised no independent arguable ground against the s6 notice once the cancellation challenge failed; appeal dismissed.
7 Dec 2012

TAN SHIH YING v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

TAN SHIH YING v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL36/2012

The court held there was no public law element in the applicant's complaint: the University's decision not to renew a fixed-term contract and the deliberate decision not to apply internal redundancy procedures did not amount to a breach of the governing Ordinance or the performance of a public duty; breaches of internal employment procedures are private law matters amenable to Labour Tribunal or contractual remedies, not judicial review. Accordingly leave to amend was refused and the judicial review dismissed.
9 Sept 2004

WONG YUI HIN JAMES v. HONG KONG ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Citation

WONG YUI HIN JAMES v. HONG KONG ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL57/2003

The Court held the Council's selection decisions were amenable to judicial review because they related directly to the Council's statutory functions; the guidelines represented a venue size of about 3,500 sq ft and the selection process materially and unfairly proceeded on a contrary assumption (about 1,000 sq ft) without correcting the guidelines or notifying applicants, rendering the selection unlawful; the Review Committee's dismissal was flawed and apparent bias arose from the Council's unqualified public announcement while appeals were pending; declaratory relief was appropriate and the…