Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Precedent

Legal area

Court

26 May 2025

CENTRE CHASE INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CASTLE PEAK ROAD INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 505
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the questions did not meet the threshold of great, general or public importance and were not reasonably arguable; existing authorities and the fact‑specific nature of waiver/acquiescence resolve the issues without a further appeal; costs awarded to respondents.
16 Nov 2023

香港特別行政區訴黎俊麟

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA343/2021

The magistrate did not err in law or fact and properly exercised sentencing discretion: given premeditation, the inconvenience caused, the appellant's mitigation and financial circumstances, and lack of evidence of higher repair costs, a fine of HKD 10,000 and compensation order of HKD 1,000 were appropriate; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
25 Nov 2021

AGRADE HOLDINGS LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL824/2020

The Board's decision was quashed because it irrationally and unlawfully relied on speculative cumulative impacts from adjoining lots and imposed an unlawful requirement of a comprehensive planning approach that fettered its discretion and denied the applicant procedural fairness; there was no evidential basis to refuse a rezoning otherwise acceptable on land use compatibility and technical assessments, so certiorari was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.
30 Apr 2021

ROYAL BILLION INVESTMENT LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1093
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1916/2018

The Court dismissed the judicial review: the Board lawfully rejected the s.12A rezoning because the Applicant failed to demonstrate feasibility of critical road access and to allay substantial planning concerns about adverse visual, landscape and nature conservation impacts and undesirable precedent; the Board properly relied on departmental expertise and its reasons were adequate; any procedural lapse over a late photomontage caused no real prejudice and would not have changed the outcome.
7 Aug 2020

HONG KONG RESORT CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL645/2017

The Board unlawfully relied on the Unused GFA (an implementation/lease‑related consideration) and thereby took into account an irrelevant consideration and omitted relevant planning factors; it also failed its Tameside duty to ask the right questions and misapplied the undesirable‑precedent concept without adequate factual basis. For these errors the Decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
6 Jan 2020

MAR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCA 27
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2017

The court held that the case was indistinguishable from H v Director of Immigration and that Section 14AB applied, rendering the decision of 10 May 2019 final; consequently the Notice of Motion and Inter Partes Summons were dismissed and the applicants must seek leave from the Appeal Committee.
12 Oct 2016

香港特別行政區訴 DINH, THI-HA

Citation

香港特別行政區訴 DINH, THI-HA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA429/2016

The court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: the appellant is a habitual shoplifter, the judge properly raised the starting point by 20% for recidivism, applied a one-third guilty-plea reduction, and the eight-month immediate custody was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
1 Aug 2013

RE LOUIS ASA LUKE ALEXIS DYLAN MABLY

Citation

RE LOUIS ASA LUKE ALEXIS DYLAN MABLY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1043/2013

Given the wholly exceptional nature and size of the prosecution, the applicant's proven role and specialist experience, and the fact that his role is substantively akin to that of a second or third silk rather than ordinary junior work, the court exercised its discretion to admit him as serving the public interest while not unduly harming the development of the local junior Bar.
18 Mar 2008

KARAHA BODAS CO LLC v. PERSUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYDAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA (otherwise known as PERTAMINA)

Citation

KARAHA BODAS CO LLC v. PERSUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYDAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA (otherwise known as PERTAMINA)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2003

Because the present application was indistinguishable from the prior Court of Appeal decision in WFM Motors, that precedent controlled; the court therefore granted leave and ordered the costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
28 Apr 2005

HKSAR v. HE LIHUA

Citation

HKSAR v. HE LIHUA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA251/2005

In light of the Court of Appeal decision in HKSAR v Lee Chang Lee [2004] HCMA935, a 15 month sentence is required for use of a forged identity card in circumstances involving working absent exceptional humanitarian grounds; the appellant failed to establish such grounds and the appeal against sentence is therefore dismissed.