Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial reviewability

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2024

蘇書幼 v. 律政司 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2193/2023

The application is dismissed because the intended challenge targets a strike-out order in the PI Action which is not properly amenable to judicial review, adequate alternative remedies (appeal and judicial conduct complaints) exist and have been or can be pursued, the applicant has not identified any arguable public law ground with a reasonable prospect of success, and repetition of substantially the same grounds amounts to abuse of process.
20 Mar 2023

MA TAK YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1551/2022

The application for leave was dismissed: it was rendered academic by demolition of the unauthorised structures and, in any event, disclosed no arguable public law error because lease enforcement is a matter of land administration not ordinarily amenable to judicial review, the applicant failed to identify proper public law grounds and failed to make full and frank disclosure; costs awarded against applicant.
14 Jul 2022

張玉珊 v. 高等法院原訟法庭陳嘉信法官

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2136
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL566/2022

The refusal by a Judge of the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal under section 28 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance is final and not susceptible to judicial review; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
20 May 2009

CHEUNG SHING SCRAP METALS RECYCLING LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHEUNG SHING SCRAP METALS RECYCLING LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL54/2008

The Director's decision not to enforce the tenancy arose from the exercise of landlord powers in the private domain and therefore was not amenable to judicial review; alternatively, on the merits the applicant failed to prove a material error of fact or a clear, unambiguous representation giving rise to legitimate expectation and furthermore lacked standing, so the judicial review application was dismissed.
13 Jul 2002

CHAN TAK KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

CHAN TAK KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL315/2000

The court held the decisions refusing promotion were not amenable to judicial review because they lacked the requisite public element and concerned employment/promotion matters; alternatively, where statutory power under s.14 existed the Commissioner properly exercised discretion based on integrity concerns and there was no breach of natural justice, no unlawful fettering, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
29 Jul 1999

KAM LAN KOON AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

KAM LAN KOON AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/1998

The Director of Lands' decision refusing extension was judicially reviewable, but on the facts the grant was for a specific stipulated private purpose (an ancestral Chi Tong) which was not fulfilled by the building's use as a Taoist public temple; appellants lacked proper standing (first applicant unconstituted, second a stranger, third not sole grantee) and assignments breached the permanent non-assignment covenant, justifying refusal of extension; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent with specified interlocutory exceptions.
5 May 1988

THE QUEEN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP567/1988

The Attorney General's decision to apply for a bill of indictment under s.24(a) was not a justiciable administrative decision for which the High Court could grant supervisory relief; no reviewable decision affecting the applicant's rights had been made by the Attorney General, and even if reviewable, the process was not shown to be flawed on the material before the Court. Accordingly the application for judicial review was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

蘇書幼 v. 律政司 AND ANOTHER

MA TAK YUEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

張玉珊 v. 高等法院原訟法庭陳嘉信法官

CHEUNG SHING SCRAP METALS RECYCLING LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

CHAN TAK KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

KAM LAN KOON AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS

THE QUEEN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER