Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal aid application

Legal area

Court

25 Apr 2025

王寬裕對創新科技及再工業局局長與政務司司長及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL874/2025

The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific administrative decision amenable to judicial review, filed incoherent and disordered materials that did not disclose any arguable public‑law error by the proposed respondents, and sought relief not properly within the scope of judicial review; accordingly there was no real prospect of success.
12 Jan 2022

律政司司長對緯裕國際有限公司經營溢發五金

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA557/2021

The summons was dismissed because the land had been lawfully resumed (rights terminated under the Lands Resumption Ordinance and the final judgment), the appellants failed to disclose any legal basis for an order directing the plaintiff to provide housing or assistance, there was no jurisdiction in the resumption proceeding to grant the relief sought, and the appellants had had reasonable time to seek advice; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
12 Aug 2021

HO YUK YEE v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 910
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1052/2018

Plaintiff's solicitors failed to disclose the claimant's post-stroke inability to communicate orally, thereby jeopardising a running-list trial; the case must be removed from the running list, medical reports must be obtained to determine mode and length of evidence and costs wasted by that failure are prima facie payable by the solicitors personally on an indemnity basis unless they show cause otherwise.
17 Dec 2019

RE MUHAMMAD NASIR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2924
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1384/2018

The court held that none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness before the Director or the Board, and there was no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the court lifted the legal aid statutory stay and refused the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.
6 Nov 2019

SUBBA SOSAL v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1237
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap. 484, raised grounds that were not previously relied on or irrelevant to the TCAB's decision, and failed to comply with the Registrar's unless order; therefore there was no basis to grant leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
15 Apr 2019

RE MAPILI EMILYN SAMPAGA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV375/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds related only to the applicant's personal circumstances and factual issues, did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap.484, and in any event the grounds lacked merit; there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
11 Apr 2016

WELLABLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI WAI CHIU JOSEPH

Citation

WELLABLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI WAI CHIU JOSEPH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP510/2016

The forged and unauthorised forms filed with the Companies Registry rendered the register entries invalid and factually inaccurate; the court was satisfied under s.42(1) that the entries derived from forged documents and under s.42(4) that their continuing presence would cause material damage (risk to company property, deemed receipt at wrong address, inability to file returns) and that the company's interest outweighed the defendant's; accordingly the Registrar was ordered to remove and rectify the entries, the legal aid stay was uplifted, costs were awarded and the instalment application di…
17 Jan 2013

RE MUI KAI MING

Citation

RE MUI KAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2709/2012

The stay was lifted because the Debtor's second legal aid application disclosed no merits or prospects of success and, given the failure to appeal the earlier rejection, its timing showed it was a delaying tactic.
30 May 2012

HKSAR v. HASHIMI HABIB HALIM

Citation

HKSAR v. HASHIMI HABIB HALIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA847/2010

The court refused the appellant's applications for a sine die adjournment, for a direction to the Director of Legal Aid to provide representation, and for costs because the appellant, having instituted the appeal, must prosecute it without undue delay; the appeal appears to be credibility based and not a matter of legal principle warranting directed legal aid; the adjournment granted was limited to six months to enable preparation and grounds must be filed 14 days before the next hearing.
15 Apr 2011

SO YEE MUI AND OTHERS v. LAM PUI CHI

Citation

SO YEE MUI AND OTHERS v. LAM PUI CHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV283/2010

The court exercised its discretion to lift the statutory stay, declined to make an unless order but imposed a lodgement deadline, and ordered security for costs of $350,000 (reduced from $1,152,000) assessed on a party-and-party basis as appropriate for a likely one-day appeal; the appeal is stayed until payment and will be dismissed if security is not paid.