Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial supervision

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

王寬裕對房屋署署長及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL490/2026

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient clarity the decision and legal grounds for review, the materials were incoherent and incapable of supporting a reasonably arguable case, the relief sought fell outside the proper scope of judicial review, and the application therefore had no real prospect and amounted to an abuse of process.
25 Mar 2025

SHAH ALAM MIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 863
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on substantially the same, previously rejected grounds and failed to demonstrate the s.37ZO threshold of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not shown to be unlawfully made. An RPO was warranted under the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and was made in specified terms for five years.
30 Jul 1999

RE KANSA GENERAL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)

Citation

RE KANSA GENERAL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/1999

The judge had jurisdiction to require the liquidators to submit fees and disbursements to taxation as a condition of sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement because the court retains supervisory control over windings-up and may impose conditions to protect creditors; the judge's decision was a proper exercise of discretion and did not deny the liquidators significant procedural rights, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
23 Jan 1990

RE SAKCHAI SUWANNAPENG

Citation

RE SAKCHAI SUWANNAPENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP157/1990

Segregation of a remand prisoner in solitary confinement pursuant to Rule 36(2) is unlawful unless the prisoner requests it; the Superintendent's order to segregate the applicant was not justified by evidence and Departmental Standing Order No.3796 insofar as it authorises segregation of 'subversive' prisoners is ultra vires; the applicant must be returned to normal association or a declaration of unlawful detention will issue; costs awarded to applicant.

Hong Kong Case Law

王寬裕 對 房屋署署長及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAH ALAM MIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

RE KANSA GENERAL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)

RE SAKCHAI SUWANNAPENG

王寬裕對房屋署署長及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]