Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice to quit

Legal area

Court

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.
15 Aug 2025

MAK LAI WAH v. HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1033/2025

The court held the AP Decision was lawfully made, the AP lawfully concluded the Daughter had an interest in the Flat within the WTP definition and there was insufficient objective evidence of trusteeship; the AP hearing was procedurally fair and the challenges were primarily merits-based and not legally arguable, so leave for judicial review was refused and the application dismissed; costs ordered against the Applicant.
8 Jul 2025

潘定家 v. 上訴委員會(房屋)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL330/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success: the divorce order was not fresh or outcome‑determinative, the estate office representation did not negate the Applicant's responsibility to declare household members' property, the Appeal Panel had considered the Applicant's circumstances and credibility and there was no procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
20 Sept 2024

CHOI WAI LUP v. HOUSING APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1023/2024

The court quashed the Appeal Panel's decision because the majority erred in concluding the applicant and his household had alternative accommodation and no pressing need without properly weighing the involuntary nature of the wife's and son's absence and the applicant's demonstrated intention and steps to occupy; the mis‑weighing of those material considerations rendered the Decision irrational and justified judicial intervention and remittal for reconsideration.
4 Jul 2024

CHAN CHI CHEONG MARSHA v. 上訴委員會 (房屋)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1618
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL814/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds (illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness) with a realistic prospect of success and his complaints amounted to disagreement with the Appeal Panel's discretionary weighing of merits.
20 May 2024

楊國銓 v. 香港房屋委員會 (上訴委員會)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL698/2024

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; the Appeal Panel lawfully considered the materials and its decision to confirm the Notice to Quit was not Wednesbury-unreasonable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
30 Apr 2024

蔣言勵 v. 上訴委員會 (房屋) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 959
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL31/2024

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds with realistic prospects of success; section 19 empowered the Housing Authority to issue the NTQ; the Appeal Panel's procedures and decision had lawful basis and no demonstrated procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
21 Jun 2023

CHAN YAU LING v. HOUSING APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL427/2023

Leave refused. Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: Tribunal had before it and considered the applicant's pandemic and schooling arguments; undisputed breach of tenancy was central; applicant elected to enter tenancy aware of residence obligation; no sufficiently arguable public law error or fettering to permit leave.
26 Sept 2022

徐中翬 v. 香港房屋協會

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL889/2022

The application for leave to judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to set out the required grounds in breach of Order 53 (rules 3(2) and 6(1)), and the subject matter (repossession by writ of possession in DCCJ 5143/2021) was not amenable to judicial review as the proper forum to challenge the repossession is the underlying DCCJ action.
22 Jan 2021

黃潔貞對和穎

Citation

[2021] HKCA 74
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP129/2020

The Court concluded the defendants’ grounds were disordered, unsupported by evidence and legally insufficient; the tenancies became periodic monthly after expiry of the fixed terms; acceptance of rent did not demonstrate a common intention to renew the tenancies; therefore the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.