Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrospective approval

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2005

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV273/2005

The Court refused leave and dismissed the appeal because Yat Ming failed to demonstrate sufficient interest at the ex parte stage: its claims sought to resolve private law contractual and liability issues not proper for public law remedies, there was no threatened public enforcement action affecting its rights, and the ex parte application was marred by inexcusable non-disclosure of an existing related civil action; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly and lawfully refused.
25 Aug 2005

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL106/2005

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked sufficient interest as it had not been materially affected by the Building Authority's decisions, the relief sought was speculative and inappropriate for judicial review (including orders the Authority lacked jurisdiction to make), and the dispute over civil liability is a matter for ordinary civil proceedings rather than anticipatory judicial review.
29 Jun 1995

THE FILIPINO CLUB v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL and Another

Citation

THE FILIPINO CLUB v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP977/1995

The Building Authority validly rejected applications to process plans for works already completed; there is no power under the Ordinance to grant retrospective approval or consent for completed building works and s.24(1)(c) cannot be used to remedy lack of prior consent; the refusal was supportable under s.16 and the Practice Note was not unlawful.
4 Oct 1988

YEUNG PUI YEE v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

YEUNG PUI YEE v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP930/1988

The April 1988 Practice Note did not state the law incorrectly: it correctly communicated that the Building Authority has no power to grant retrospective approval or consent under section 14(1), with section 42(5) precluding exemptions; therefore the Practice Note was not susceptible to review and the judicial review application was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD

RE YAT MING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD

THE FILIPINO CLUB v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL and Another

YEUNG PUI YEE v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY