Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of discretionary decisions

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNG WUI APARTMENTS v. WUI FU COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 550
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP198/2024

The Court concluded the IO failed to raise any arguable error of law: the judge's factual findings that the IO knew the Authorised Person requirement and was at fault in not appointing one were open on the evidence, Ground 1 and Ground 2 were not reasonably arguable, Ground 3 was unparticularised, and therefore leave to appeal was refused and the renewed summonses dismissed with costs.
13 Feb 2019

TSANG WING KWAI v. TSANG WING FAI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 163
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2018

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the judge lawfully and properly exercised his wide discretion under s.33(3) PAO to remove the defendant as executor because the defendant had put himself in a conflict position, acted against beneficiaries' interests, failed to produce proper accounts and failed to recognise the conflict; the nominative significance of the testatrix's appointment was considered but did not outweigh the statutory criteria; the summons to admit fresh evidence was dismissed because the evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not sufficiently relevant to alter t…
17 May 2005

CHENG KAM KUEN v. HKSAR

Citation

CHENG KAM KUEN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL92/2004

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the deputy judge lawfully and properly exercised his wide discretion under the costs statute by taking into account the applicant's failure to disclose his defence at investigation when that silence was causally connected to suspicion and had misled the prosecution; no public law ground existed to disturb his weighing of factors.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNG WUI APARTMENTS v. WUI FU COMPANY LTD

TSANG WING KWAI v. TSANG WING FAI

CHENG KAM KUEN v. HKSAR