Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legitimate expectation

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2026

CHIANG SHAM LAM ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL

Citation

[2026] HKCA 391
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP124/2025

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the Tribunal correctly characterised the proceedings as disciplinary (civil) so criminal sentencing principles and the 2017 Guideline were inapplicable or non‑binding; the Tribunal’s de novo review and the Council’s assessment support that a 3‑year suspension was within the permissible range and not plainly excessive; the stay application was procedurally misplaced and dismissed.
5 Mar 2026

LI MENGZHI v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 246
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV430/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the applicant's one-way permit was invalid ab initio due to the marriage being void, that vitiated permission to land making her landing unlawful for purposes of ordinary residence under the IO, and the proportionality argument either is not an independent ground of review in this context or is inapplicable because the Tribunal had no discretion to confer right of abode; grounds advanced were therefore unarguable.
20 Feb 2026

JUTHE CHHETRI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2026] HKCA 213
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV247/2025

The Court found no error in the Leave Decision: the PS for S provided adequate reasons by way of Minute M.1, the applicant's family circumstances were considered and any balancing of humanitarian factors falls within executive discretion, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
15 Dec 2025

HO KONG, THE SOLE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FONG MI YEE DECEASED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1122
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2024

The Court held that a declared possessory title coupled with recorded occupation qualifies the person as an 'owner-occupier' under the HPA Guidelines; 'owner' in §6.1.2 must be given an autonomous, purposive meaning applicable across resumption statutes and is not confined to registered/paper owners, so the Applicant is eligible to be considered for HPA.
4 Dec 2025

YIU HON YEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2611/2025

Interim relief was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success and failed to file an affidavit verifying the facts; consequently leave could not be granted at this stage though the application for leave was held open and the Director was directed to provide an Initial Response.
28 Nov 2025

MA MEI MEI v. THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1722/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because (1) the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error against the TPB and the TPB's advisory clause is not part of the decision; (2) the HKSHC acted as a private landowner and its decision to make the planning application was a preparatory act not amenable to judicial review; and (3) the application was brought out of time with no good reason for extension and had no realistic prospect of success.
12 Nov 2025

CHEUNG TAT MING ERIC v. THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL529/2022

The Council lawfully retained power to refer under s9A and its departure from internal standard procedure was justified on the facts: the independent panel provided a fair and impartial fact-finding process, practical quorum and administrative difficulties existed, and the referral was an interim investigatory step; on balance there was no procedural unfairness or real possibility of bias such as to vitiate the Decision, and bad faith was not established. The judicial review application is dismissed.
22 Oct 2025

LO HON HING v. LONG TERM PRISON SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1278/2024

The Board erred in law by treating s8(c) sufficiency of sentence as determinative and failing to take the required holistic approach under s8 to rehabilitation and risk and relevant Schedule 1 factors; the Decision was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh review conducted in accordance with all four mandatory s8 principles.
22 Aug 2025

TANG CHIU MAN AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL916/2021

The May Decision (21 May 2021) and the Director's exercise of discretion in approving the rebuilding with conditions were not amenable to judicial review absent cogent proof of bad faith; the Applicants failed to prove bad faith or ulterior motive on the balance of probabilities, JR1 was academic, and both judicial review applications are dismissed with costs.
22 Aug 2025

TANG CHIU MAN AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL68/2021

The Court held the May Decision was not amenable to judicial review because the Director was acting in his capacity as landlord under a private Block Crown Lease and the applicants failed to prove bad faith or an improper ulterior motive; the delay, requisitions and imposed conditions did not meet the heavy standard required to convert a private decision into a public law matter. JR1 was academic. Applications dismissed and costs awarded to the Director.