Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrospectivity of legislation

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. THE RATING AND VALUATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1609/2024

The application for leave was dismissed: the RVD email was not a substantive final decision amenable to judicial review; the application amounted to an impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process because the statutory route under s120AAE and the District Court proceedings were the proper fora; the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds and to comply with procedural requirements; accordingly leave refused and costs awarded to RVD.
4 Jan 2019

RE LEUNG KWAN TSAN KELVIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 20
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB11341/2002

Court was bound by the Court of Appeal in Re Ng Shiu Fan; the relevant statutory provisions vesting subsidized school provident fund benefits in the trustee are valid; s.85(5) is a legitimate non-retrospective provision justified by public policy and proportionality; differential treatment by date of bankruptcy does not engage protected status under ICCPR/Basic Law and is justified; equitable relief under Re Condon cannot displace the clear legislative scheme — therefore the applicant's amended summons is dismissed.
30 Jun 2000

LI SHUK FAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LI SHUK FAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2/2000

The NPCSC Interpretation of Basic Law arts.22(4) and 24(2)(3) was valid and binding and operates retrospectively to 1 July 1997; the January 1999 CFA judgments benefit only the named parties and those specifically protected by governmental undertakings; applicants did not demonstrate a clear, enforceable legitimate expectation that they would be treated as parties or that the government would freeze the law for them; the Chief Executive's Concession was permissibly and rationally interpreted by the Executive as limited to persons who had lodged a claim with the Director while physically in Ho…
11 Jun 1999

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV13/1999

The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal judgments were not final within s22 and, having reviewed the matters, found no question of great general or public importance nor any other reason to submit the issues to this Court; furthermore the trial judge's determinations were within his discretion and there was no justification to interfere.
14 May 1999

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

CHIM PUI CHUNG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/1999

The Court held that the interlocutory directions sought were unnecessary or premature because the contentious issues (public interest ground, retrospectivity of provisions, shareholder liability and particulars/quantum) had been determined by prior rulings or are matters properly resolved at the full trial; admission of overseas counsel complied with established procedure and did not require consultation, so the judge correctly refused the directions.
29 Jan 1999

THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. CHEUNG LAI WAH

Citation

THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. CHEUNG LAI WAH
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV16/1998

The Court held that Article 24(3) confers an unqualified constitutional right of abode on permanent residents defined in Article 24(2) and Article 22(4) does not qualify that right; the No 3 Ordinance is unconstitutional insofar as it required possession of a Mainland one-way permit affixed with a certificate of entitlement as a precondition to enjoy the right of abode, and its retrospective deeming clause is unconstitutional; the verification scheme requiring certificates is permissible but must not make mainland exit approval a constitutional precondition; the statutory exclusion of illegit…
29 Jan 1999

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/1998

The Court held it has jurisdiction to interpret the Basic Law and need not refer to the NPC Standing Committee because the predominant provision to be interpreted in these cases was Article 24 (right of abode) which is within the Region's autonomy; Article 22(4) does not qualify Article 24 and does not permit conditioning the constitutional right of abode on Mainland exit permits; accordingly the No.3 Ordinance is unconstitutional insofar as it requires a Mainland one-way permit affixed with a certificate of entitlement and insofar as it operates retrospectively, but the scheme insofar as lim…
2 Apr 1998

CHEUNG LAI WAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHEUNG LAI WAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/1997

The Court held the Immigration (Amendment) (No.3) Ordinance 1997 and its certificate-of-entitlement scheme are within the Basic Law and legitimately implement Article 22(4) (orderly, quota-based approval for entry from Mainland); however the provision in the Immigration (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance that excludes illegitimate children of fathers from Article 24(3) entitlement is unconstitutional and invalid; the retrospective commencement of No.3 was held by a majority not to deprive persons who were physically present in Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 of their accrued right of abode (the retrospect…
2 Apr 1998

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/1997

The Court held the Immigration (Amendment) (No.3) Ordinance 1997 (the certificate of entitlement scheme requiring application via the Mainland BEEA and affixation to a Mainland exit travel document) is a constitutional procedure implementing Article 22(4) and is not inconsistent with the Basic Law or ICCPR as a general measure to regulate orderly settlement; the No.2 Ordinance provision that excluded illegitimate children of male Hong Kong permanent residents from Article 24(3) was unconstitutional and invalid as it unlawfully restricted the scope of Article 24(3) and violated equality princi…
9 Oct 1997

CHEUNG LAI WAH AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHEUNG LAI WAH AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL71/1997

The court held that (1) procedural requirements that claimants prove descent to the satisfaction of the Director of Immigration and obtain a one-way exit permit before being admitted are not incompatible with Arts.24,31 or 39 of the Basic Law or Art.8(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights because Art.24 does not prescribe verification procedures and Art.22(4) authorises central control over settlement from mainland China; (2) the retrospective operation of the No.3 Ordinance did not render it unconstitutional under Art.12(1) because Art.12(1) prohibits conviction for acts not criminal at the tim…