Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ouster clause

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2024

LAI CHEE YING v. THE COMMITTEE FOR SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2023

The Court held that NSL Article 14 read together with the NPCSC Interpretation plainly indicates that decisions of the NSC are not amenable to judicial review; the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable, so leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused, and indemnity costs were awarded in part to mark unreasonable litigation conduct with specific reductions on summary assessment.
28 Sept 2012

RE LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

RE LEUNG KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL83/2012

Given the concurrent election petition and substantial overlap, the applicants failed to justify parallel judicial review; their conduct and tactical duplication amounted to unusual circumstances permitting a costs award. The court ordered each applicant to pay half the costs of the Respondent on a party‑to‑party basis, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel, and refused indemnity costs.
28 Sept 2012

RE HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT

Citation

RE HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2012

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused; having regard to the concurrence of an election petition, the tactical commencement of parallel proceedings by Mr Ho and substantial overlap with Mr Leung's pleadings (and awareness of the petition), the court found unusual circumstances justifying a costs order. Each applicant was ordered to pay half the Respondent's costs on a party-to-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for two counsel; indemnity costs were refused.
30 Jul 2012

RE HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT

Citation

RE HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2012

Section 32 of the CEEO must be given its plain meaning: challenges to a Chief Executive election on the grounds enumerated in s32 can be pursued only by election petition under that statutory scheme; Article 47 does not permit judicial review to remove or disqualify a Chief Executive for pre-office conduct; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused as a matter of law and, in any event, as a matter of judicial discretion to prevent parallel proceedings and abuse of process given HCAL 85/2012.
14 Mar 2008

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHAPMAN DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHAPMAN DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC4466/2007

S.75(4) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance precludes the District Court from entertaining a defence that the tax assessed is excessive, incorrect or under objection or appeal; consequently striking out the Defence was appropriate and did not infringe Article 10 of the Bill of Rights or Basic Law Article 35 in the circumstances; stay was refused and judgment entered for the Commissioner.
2 Feb 2001

GURUNG BHAKTA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

GURUNG BHAKTA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1579/2000

Section 64(3) does not force an exclusive election barring judicial review of an administrative authority's decision where an objection has been lodged with the Chief Executive; rather, s64(3) protects decisions of the Chief Executive in Council from judicial review only insofar as those decisions fall within the statutory 'permitted field' and are not nullities. Where the Chief Executive in Council acts outside jurisdiction, in bad faith, or in a manner that renders its decision a nullity, judicial review remains available under Anisminic and its authorities.
30 May 2000

THAI MUOI v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

THAI MUOI v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL155/1999

Section 19(3) of the Housing Ordinance does not clearly oust the court's power of judicial review; HKHA and the Appeal Tribunal committed errors of law by failing to consider whether the tenant took reasonable steps to prevent her husband storing raw opium in the flat and by not addressing the potential application of clause 4(g) as a distinct vicarious liability ground; consequently both the Notice to Quit and the Tribunal's confirmation are quashed and the matters must be reconsidered after proper procedure and invitation to respond.
9 Sept 1994

LAU SAN CHING v. APPOLLONIA LIU

Citation

LAU SAN CHING v. APPOLLONIA LIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV159/1994

The majority held that the statutory scheme treats the election as a process beginning with nomination; s.30(2) and Reg.9(7) restrict challenges to the returning officer's nomination decisions to election petitions under s.31, and Reg.9(7) is intra vires; consequently the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellants' judicial review claims at this stage and the appeals were dismissed (with Godfrey J.A. adding that even if judicial review were available it should be refused as a matter of discretion).
9 Sept 1994

CHAN PO MING, ERIC Ex-parte

Citation

CHAN PO MING, ERIC Ex-parte
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV160/1994

Majority held that the applicants' complaints amounted to 'material irregularity relating to the election' and therefore under s.30(1)(a)(iii) and s.30(2) the proper remedy is an election petition presented under s.31 after polling; Reg.9(7) is intra vires and reinforces that returning officer determinations on nominations are to be challenged only by election petition; accordingly the appeals are dismissed (Godfrey J.A. agreed on dismissal but held judicial review may in principle be available pre-election and was refused here on discretionary grounds).
2 Sept 1994

FUNG CHAN KI, RICHARD v. CHOW TAT MING, THOMAS

Citation

FUNG CHAN KI, RICHARD v. CHOW TAT MING, THOMAS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2312/1994

Judicial review applications were dismissed: Regulation 9(7) and the statutory election‑petition scheme operate so that challenges to nomination validity are to be pursued by election petition; Regulation 9(7) is intra vires; applicants' contention for immediate judicial review was rejected to preserve statutory electoral procedures and integrity; therefore motions dismissed and costs to be heard.