Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public consultation

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2025

鄧素珊對城巿規劃委員會

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL647/2024

The applicant's grounds were either matters of planning judgment not amenable to judicial intervention or legally untenable; alleged defects in documents, disclosure and geotechnical concealment lacked objective basis and did not establish an arguable case with a real prospect of success; applicable statutory and procedural rules were followed and geotechnical or building approval matters lie with technical authorities, therefore leave to apply for judicial review and interim relief were refused.
6 Nov 2024

HOSTFORD DECELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2260/2023

The court dismissed the judicial review: the MPC's partial agreement was sufficiently clear when read in context with the MPC Paper and minutes; there was no unlawful delegation because PlanD's role in drafting detailed OZP amendments followed the statutory scheme; the TPB had taken into account the relevant public comments (including pedestrian safety and the Alternative Proposal) and the weighing of those matters was a planning judgment for the TPB, not susceptible to judicial substitution; no failure to give adequate reasons was proved sufficient to cause substantial prejudice.
4 Sept 2020

TAM HOI PONG v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL20/2014

The court quashed the TPB decision because the TPB acted ultra vires in imposing Condition (o) and thereby deferring to government departments the determination of essential PPP requirements derived from the TPB policy and the 2011 NNCP Arrangements (funding and conservation agent provisions) which are material preconditions that must be satisfied and subject to public and TPB scrutiny before approval; the applicant's legitimate expectation that TPB would require compliance with those requirements was therefore breached; challenges on misapplication of the precautionary approach and the no ne…
22 Dec 2016

HO LOY AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Citation

HO LOY AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL21/2015

The Director lawfully approved the EIA Report and granted the permit because the Report satisfied the Study Brief and Technical Memorandum requirements: CAD validly confirmed operational inputs, PRD airspace assumptions were not a required precondition for EIA input assumptions (flight tracks and utilisation were properly stated), on‑site mitigation measures and proposed operational compensation were adequate and feasible, cumulative impacts were properly addressed within the Study Brief scope, and no additional common law consultation or inquiry duties arose beyond the statutory EIA process;…
5 Sept 2012

RE YUK WAH BEN

Citation

RE YUK WAH BEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL114/2012

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no clear representation by the Director that the choice of site remained open after repeated and consistent communications from 24 August 2010, the applicants unreasonably delayed and the claim was out of time with no good reason to extend time, and there were no reasonably arguable grounds under Article 40 BL or Articles 14 or 19 HKBORO.
12 Oct 2011

WONG FUK TIM v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG FUK TIM v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1008/2011

The Statement of Claim was struck out because the pleaded causes are public law challenges that should have been brought by judicial review (leave/time requirements not met), the Railways Ordinance provides the statutory objection and compensation regime pre-empting private law relief, and on the pleaded facts there is no reasonably arguable cause of action so the proceedings are an abuse of process.
18 Mar 2005

SHIU WING STEEL LTD v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Citation

SHIU WING STEEL LTD v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV350/2003

On proper construction the TM is guidance and the Study Brief is project‑specific; the Study Brief requires QRA only for hazardous scenarios that are credible or applicable to the project. The Director reasonably concluded the 100% instantaneous tank‑failure scenario was not a credible/applicable scenario for this PAFF (given tank design and site conditions) and therefore was not obliged to require a QRA for that scenario; accordingly his decisions approving the EIA Report and granting the environmental permit were lawful and the appeal is dismissed (majority).
8 Jul 2003

SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2003

Section 3 PHO imposes a presumption against reclamation which must be displaced only where there is a compelling, overriding and present public need demonstrated by clear, cogent evidence, no reasonable alternative exists, and the reclamation is limited to the minimum necessary; the Board misinterpreted s3 by treating the presumption as merely another material consideration and by justifying non‑essential reclamation as part of a wider scheme rather than assessing each reclamation individually, rendering its decisions unlawful and Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the Board's decisions were…