13 Jun 2024
The arbitration clause did not provide, expressly or by implication, that arbitration under the agreement is a domestic arbitration within the meaning of section 100; accordingly Schedule 2 (including rights of appeal on questions of law) does not apply, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed, and leave is granted to enforce the Award.
1 Dec 2021
The Chairman of the PIC does not have a coercive power to compel third parties to produce medical records at the screening stage: such a power is not reasonably necessary within s40(1) IGCO nor properly implied at common law given the statutory scheme, the limited negative filtering role of the screener, and the express grant of compulsory powers to inquiry panels which indicates compulsion was reserved for the inquiry stage; accordingly the appeals were dismissed.
1 Dec 2021
The Chairman does not have a statutory or implied common law power to compel the Hospital Authority to produce patient records at the preliminary screening stage; section 40(1) IGCO and common law implication do not support coercive powers for a limited screening role, and the statutory scheme (including express compulsion power for inquiry panels) demonstrates compulsion was intended to be reserved to later stages. Accordingly the mandatory injunction was refused and the appeals dismissed.
21 Dec 2020
The Court held the ERO is constitutional: it authorises the CEIC to make emergency subsidiary legislation without impermissibly delegating general legislative power because such delegation is appropriately limited by the ERO's internal constraints, judicial review, LegCo negative vetting and Basic Law safeguards. Applying the four-step proportionality test, the Court held the PFCR's prohibitions in section 3 (including 3(1)(b),(c),(d)) are rationally connected to legitimate aims and are no more than reasonably necessary and strike a fair balance, whereas section 5 had been previously held dis…
13 Nov 2012
On proper construction POBO s.14(4) abrogates the common law privilege against self-incrimination in respect of compliance with s.14 notices; s.20 must be read as imposing a general prohibition on direct use of compelled material except in the narrow circumstances expressly permitted (statutory declarations/statements in writing under s.14(1)(a)-(c) when the defendant gives evidence), derivative use is permissible, and the statutory scheme as so construed is a lawful, rational and proportionate limitation compatible with the Bill of Rights and the Basic Law; appeal dismissed.
29 Jun 2001
Court of Appeal held that Article 31 secures a non‑permanent resident's freedom to travel which includes a right to return; statutory provisions and executive practice (s.11(10), s.7(1)/s.11(1)) must be construed so as not to deny that constitutional right absent clear statutory language; the refusal to grant permission to land and the subsequent removal order were unlawful because they resulted from executive action that effectively denied the Article 31 right and the Director failed to advance adequate contemporaneous reasons and procedure to justify removal; the appeal was allowed and the…