Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oath-taking by legislators

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2019

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL226/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering relevant factual distinctions (notably the milder nature of Mr Yiu's oath variation and his stated belief), correctly treated the public interest argument as part of factual matrix absent reliance on the PIL exception, and properly weighed other relevant factors leading to a just and fair outcome of no order as to costs for Mr Yiu.
16 Jan 2017

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the questions raised were of public importance, the applicants failed to show reasonable prospects of success: the non-intervention argument was unarguable as it would oust the courts' constitutional duty to adjudicate article 104 compliance; the NPCSC Interpretation is a binding legislative interpretation under article 158 that can supplement and be retrospective; vacation under s21 operates automatically; and the Chief Executive had locus in the circumstances.
16 Jan 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/2016

Leave to appeal refused because, although the questions raised are of great public importance, they have no reasonable prospects of success: the non‑intervention principle cannot displace courts' constitutional duty to adjudicate compliance with Basic Law art 104; NPCSC interpretations under art 158 are binding, can supplement law and operate retrospectively; vacation under s21 is automatic; and the Chief Executive has locus in these proceedings; accordingly the Court of Appeal refused leave.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL