Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to be heard

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2022

THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUI HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 517
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2019

The Disciplinary Committee erred by failing to consider and understand the material medical diagnosis in the documents and by not making further enquiries about the respondent's serious heart condition; that error caused prejudice because the respondent had arguable, non‑immaterial matters and submissions that he was prevented from presenting; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the disciplinary decisions are set aside and remitted to a differently constituted Disciplinary Committee for rehearing.
26 Nov 2021

CHOI CHUEN SUN v. COMMISSIOINER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3003
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL188/2016

SO 56-01 does engage protected rights of communication and privacy under BL 30 and BOR 14, but the statutory and factual context, the SOs' case-by-case approval mechanism, accompanying monitoring procedures and resource considerations render the interference justified and proportionate; the application procedure affords sufficient opportunity to be heard; SO 56-01 is not ultra vires and the differential treatment under SO 58-17 for prisoners with overseas family is objectively and reasonably justified, consequently the judicial review is dismissed.
4 Jun 2021

RE DINESH KUMAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 797
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, had procedural default in failing to lodge written submissions or request oral hearing, and relied on allegations not advanced below which the court would not entertain.
28 Sept 2020

KWOK WAI FUN, FRANCO (RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE KOWLOON WEST GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTITUENCY) v. LAU SIU LAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 31
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV94/2020

The Court held that the returning officer's failure to afford the candidate any opportunity to be heard when invalidating her nomination was a material irregularity because it infringed fundamental rights (Basic Law art 26; HKBOR art 21(b)) and undermined procedural fairness and electoral integrity; it was unnecessary for the court to determine the substantive question of the candidate's true intention where materiality could be decided on the procedural breach, and the contrary arguments were not reasonably arguable.
18 Dec 2019

RE GHOUS NIAZ

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1412
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the grounds advanced were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; and there was no basis to grant leave on the 'otherwise' limb or to entertain new fact-sensitive points not previously argued.
26 Jun 2019

YEUNG BING KWONG KENNETH v. MOUNT OSCAR LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 688
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/2019

Appeal dismissed: sections 462 and 463 do not, by necessary implication, require that reasons for a proposed removal be given to the affected director; the statutory protections in s463 are sufficient; the omission of a reasons requirement cannot be supplied by implication; indemnity costs order was excessive so set aside and replaced with party-and-party costs below and of the appeal.
4 Dec 2014

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN

Citation

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4344/2012

The court exercised its case management discretion to dismiss the summonses because it would not order disclosure of the Funding Agreement due to its confidentiality clause and because permitting the applicants to appear without disclosure would serve no useful purpose, particularly where the applicants are the subject of the trustees' investigation.
14 Mar 2014

TWC v. LSC

Citation

TWC v. LSC
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11594/2012

The children do not possess a presently enforceable legal or equitable interest in the family assets sufficient to justify joinder: their asserted rights are contingent or moral pending the father's death, no cause of action or particulars of beneficial interest were pleaded, alleged unwritten trusts in land fail s5(1) Conveyancing and Property Ordinance formalities and exceptions do not apply, and proprietary estoppel cannot be used as a stand‑alone cause of action; accordingly the joinder application is dismissed.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA133/2006

Section 11A requires a two-stage review process and, absent exceptional circumstances, the respondent must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the first stage; the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent and overriding reasons (the asserted refund possibility and a new 2008 appeal) to disturb the Tribunal's November 3, 2008 case management decision selecting a single test appeal and maintaining stays, and therefore the application for review is refused.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA21/2001

The Tribunal held that s11A creates a two-stage review process with a one‑month decision requirement and that the respondent is ordinarily entitled to be heard at the first stage; on the facts the applicant failed to show cogent overriding reasons (the prospect of refunds or a new 2008 appeal) to revisit the 3 November case management decision selecting a single test appeal, so the application for review was refused and the stays and test appeal procedure remain in place.