Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of administrative action

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2018

HO KAR HEI v. DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION SERVICES

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2016

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that their freedom of expression or press rights were infringed by the Director's decisions; the Director's policy of limiting access to registered/licensed media and making selective exceptions for student journalists fell within administrative discretion as applied in the circumstances, and therefore leave for judicial review was refused and no relief was granted.
26 Sept 2003

FOK HO CHIU v. THE CHINESE TEMPLES COMMITTEE

Citation

FOK HO CHIU v. THE CHINESE TEMPLES COMMITTEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2003

The court held that the Respondent's pre-qualification stage legitimately tested non-pecuniary merits, but the Respondent had made a clear and unambiguous procedural representation in its 20 August 2002 letter that knowledge, experience and ability would be considered at stage two as well; departure from that represented procedure unfairly affected the Applicant and thus the decision rejecting his tender was unlawful and was quashed; the Respondent was directed to re-run the second stage of the tender process absent special circumstances justifying departure.
16 Sept 1993

ALLIED GROUP LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Another

Citation

ALLIED GROUP LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/1993

The Court of Appeal held the Financial Secretary lawfully established a steering committee within his statutory powers under s143 Companies Ordinance; nothing in the committee's terms of reference, the evidence of its conduct, or press reports gave rise to an arguable real danger that the inspector's independence or objectivity had been compromised. The applicants had no realistic prospect of showing apparent bias at the leave stage; appeal dismissed.
28 Sept 1992

RE HUI KAT FAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

RE HUI KAT FAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1526/1992

The court found the Deputy Director had lawfully and adequately re-assessed the s.13 applications, took material considerations into account, was entitled to rely on departmental information (including hearsay of probative value), and his conclusions were within the range of reasonable decisions; therefore there was no error of law or irrationality requiring quashing of the decisions.
5 Mar 1985

RE FLYING CRANE LTD

Citation

RE FLYING CRANE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP426/1985

Sections 20 and 21 must be read together and, in the context of s.21(4) and the object of the Import and Export Ordinance, the term "article" can include documents relating to the article; accordingly Customs officers lawfully seized documents when they reasonably suspected offences and were conducting an investigation under s.20/s.21.
20 Feb 1981

LEUNG CHOW PUBLIC CAR CO (A FIRM) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LEUNG CHOW PUBLIC CAR CO (A FIRM) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/1980

Appeal dismissed: the Commissioner lawfully exercised his powers and reductions were not shown to be ultra vires or motivated by malice; the appellant lacked the requisite property in the vehicles at the time of application; and damages for unlawful administrative action are not recoverable absent malice or knowledge that the act was ultra vires, such precedent being binding.

Hong Kong Case Law

HO KAR HEI v. DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION SERVICES

FOK HO CHIU v. THE CHINESE TEMPLES COMMITTEE

ALLIED GROUP LTD. and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Another

RE HUI KAT FAN AND ANOTHER

RE FLYING CRANE LTD

LEUNG CHOW PUBLIC CAR CO (A FIRM) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL