Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rule‑making power

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2001

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2001

The Court held Rule 255B is intra vires: s.20E contemplates punishment for prison officers convicted of criminal offences and expressly refers to rules under s.25; s.25 authorizes rules concerning regulation and government of prisons including conduct and punishment. Consequently the Court allowed the respondents' appeal against the judge's two orders declaring the rule and the Chief Executive's dismissal void; however the Court declined to substitute its own decision on the merits and dismissed the appeal in respect of the judge's third order, leaving remedial consequences to further adminis…
11 Dec 1998

YIP KU v. KWAN KUK LIN

Citation

YIP KU v. KWAN KUK LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC5/1997

The Court has no statutory jurisdiction to order an interim lump sum payment on the basis advanced; Rule 78 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules cannot be construed to create a substantive interim lump sum power beyond the MPPO and MCO rule‑making powers, and only clear legislative provision can confer such a power (following authorities including Wicks v Wicks).
3 Aug 1983

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

Citation

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1983

Order 20 rule 5(5) is ultra vires insofar as it purports to permit amendments introducing new causes of action that were already time‑barred because allowing such amendments would divest defendants of an accrued substantive right created by the Limitation Ordinance and exceed the Rule Committee's procedural rule‑making power and conflict with primary legislation.
7 Apr 1976

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWONG-SHING t/A KA WAH NOTORS CO

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWONG-SHING t/A KA WAH NOTORS CO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV58/1975

Regulation 17A was ultra vires but Regulation 18B (save for the invalid paragraph) was valid and the Commissioner lawfully had discretion under Regulation 17(1)/18B to refuse or hold in abeyance applications lodged after he had in effect decided to impose a ceiling even though publication followed; a mere lodgement of a compliant application does not create an immediate vested right to registration. On the evidence the respondent was entitled to registration of 34 vehicles; appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

YIP KU v. KWAN KUK LIN

GOHIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG KWONG-SHING t/A KA WAH NOTORS CO