Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Permission for judicial review

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

王寬裕對高等及終審法院的兩位首席法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL305/2026

The application for permission was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify the decision and formulate arguable grounds, the materials were disordered and incoherent, the issues and relief sought were not appropriately within the scope of judicial review, and there was no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of the judicial review process.
1 Dec 2025

梁淑芳對九龍城社署陳珮琪 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1972/2025

Permission refused because the application was filed far outside the three‑month statutory period with no good reason to extend, and the material before the court did not disclose any arguable public law ground but consisted of chaotic, speculative and non‑objective allegations; therefore no real prospect of success was shown.
28 Jul 2025

蔡明珠對香港房屋委員會及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1204/2025

Permission for judicial review was granted because, on the papers at the permission stage, the applicant presented arguable and non-frivolous grounds: credible evidence that the applicant was neither occupant nor aware of the husband's interest in the property and that the husband's cognitive impairment and the family's circumstances warranted full judicial scrutiny of the Housing Authority's policy and its application in this case.
4 Jun 2025

TUNG LAI LAM 對高勁修法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1206/2025

The application for permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularize coherent arguable grounds in Form 86, several challenged decisions were plainly out of time under Order 53 r4 with no justification for extension, the pleaded material was disorganized and unsupported by objective evidence, and the remaining complaints concerned case‑management decisions that did not disclose public‑law error; accordingly the application had no real prospect of success.
7 Feb 2024

陳祺豐對香港終審法院首席法官張舉能法官及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1997/2023

The court concluded that the statutory categories "officer of the Court" and "solicitor of the High Court" do not amount to Basic Law art 104 "other judicial officers" nor to a "public office" under the National Security Law, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds with a real prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
3 Aug 2018

秦錦釗對東區裁判法院裁判官陳炳宙及另七人

Citation

[2018] HKCA 448
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/2017

The Court dismissed both appeals: the magistrate's refusal to issue summonses was lawful and not susceptible to judicial review because the applicant had an available appeal route which he chose not to pursue; the original judge did not err in law or fact in refusing leave, PD9.2 could not be used to circumvent statutory procedures, and the applications constituted an abuse of process warranting dismissal and an award of costs against the applicant.
16 Mar 2016

何秀娟對 VTC法團註冊人

Citation

何秀娟對 VTC法團註冊人
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2011

The Court dismissed the appeal because the dispute was a private employment/contractual matter not amenable to judicial review, supported by precedent (Chik Po Yee), and because the appellant's attempt to rely on Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance s10 was raised for the first time on appeal and was both unpleaded in the original forms and made after an inordinate delay of over a year without any exceptional circumstances to justify permitting the new ground.

Hong Kong Case Law

王寬裕 對 高等及終審法院的兩位首席法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

梁淑芳 對 九龍城社署陳珮琪 [Decision on Leave Application]

蔡明珠 對 香港房屋委員會及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

TUNG LAI LAM 對 高勁修法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

陳祺豐 對 香港終審法院首席法官張舉能法官及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

秦錦釗 對 東區裁判法院裁判官陳炳宙及另七人

何秀娟 對 VTC法團註冊人

王寬裕對高等及終審法院的兩位首席法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

梁淑芳對九龍城社署陳珮琪 [Decision on Leave Application]

蔡明珠對香港房屋委員會及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

TUNG LAI LAM 對高勁修法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

陳祺豐對香港終審法院首席法官張舉能法官及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

秦錦釗對東區裁判法院裁判官陳炳宙及另七人

何秀娟對 VTC法團註冊人