Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separation of powers

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

LAU DIK SANG v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/2026

Appeal dismissed: mandatory non‑compliance with Order 53 in the Form 86 justified refusal of leave; prosecutorial decisions by DoJ are not subject to judicial review on conventional administrative law grounds absent an allegation of unconstitutionality; Commissioner validly relied on s17(2) TDO to refuse disclosure; courts may not compel amendment of primary legislation.
29 May 2023

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1440
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC51/2022

The court rejected the application for a permanent stay because the applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that designated judges under NSL 44 would be biased or that executive conduct (including the NPCSC interpretation, NSC decision and immigration actions) constituted bad faith or an abuse of process sufficient to offend the court's sense of justice; statutory and constitutional safeguards, judicial oath, appointment procedures and case assignment practices ensure independence, a fair trial remains possible, and the public interest requires the prosecution to proceed.
21 Dec 2020

LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2020

The Court held the ERO is a constitutional empowering statute permitting the CEIC to make emergency subsidiary regulations subject to judicial, legislative and constitutional constraints; the PFCR was justified by evidence of public danger and section 3 (prohibiting facial coverings likely to prevent identification at specified public gatherings) is rationally connected, necessary and strikes a fair balance and is therefore proportionate; applicants' challenges to the ERO and to section 3 failed; Government appeal allowed in part.
14 Sept 2020

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 758
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA520/2018

The Court refused certification because the questions were not reasonably arguable: properly construed s17(c) LC(PP)O applies to members, LegCo can by statute confer penal jurisdiction on the courts over members for conduct covered by s17(c), s3 does not protect conduct falling within s17(c), and these provisions are constitutional and consistent with separation of powers and the non-intervention principle.
18 Jun 2020

NANCY ANN KISSEL v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 490
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2018

Section 8(c) of the Long‑term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance does not obligate the Board to fix or disclose a tariff or triggering period; fixing the punitive part is a judicial function, the Board must reassess sufficiency on each review by reference to current circumstances, and a failure to disclose a tariff/triggering period in an adverse decision does not breach natural justice provided adequate reasons are given.
16 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. YU LIK WAI WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2015

The Court refused to certify the three points for the Court of Final Appeal: the first was declined as a matter for the Court of Final Appeal to consider if it wishes; the second was refused as not reasonably arguable and because remedial interpretation is an available and appropriate judicial tool to preserve fair trial protections under s61(4) ICSO; the third depended on certification of the second and was therefore refused.
17 May 2018

NANCY ANN KISSEL v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2016

The Board was not required to demarcate or indicate a punitive tariff or a fixed 'triggering period' when declining to recommend substitution of a determinate sentence; as an executive review body it must assess each review afresh under s.8(c) of the Ordinance and the refusal to indicate a triggering period did not breach Article 80 of the Basic Law, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, or natural justice in the circumstances of this case.
1 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. LEUNG HIU YEUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 2
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC5/2017

A police officer who is on duty within the precincts of the Chamber falls within the statutory definition of an "officer of the Council" in s2(1) LC(PP)O without requiring a prior invitation by the President; police may lawfully enter to perform ordinary policing duties and, when assisting enforcement of Administrative Instructions and directions to keep order, are acting in the execution of their duty so that obstruction attracts liability under s19(b); accordingly the appellant's conviction under s19(b) is upheld.
27 Sept 2017

TSANG KIN-SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KIN-SHING v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL458/2017

The court refused leave because the CEIC Decision was an intermediate, non-decisive step in a multi-stage Three-step Process whose substantive legal and factual consequences depend on future agreements, an NPCSC decision and domestic legislation; the challenge is therefore premature and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting early judicial intervention.
24 Mar 2017

RE HONG KONG JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION

Citation

RE HONG KONG JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2017

The court granted leave for judicial review because the policy raised seriously arguable constitutional and administrative law issues, but dismissed the application for an interim mandatory injunction because there was not a high degree of assurance that the mandatory relief sought would be the correct final remedy, the court must avoid usurping executive policy-making, the application was late, and significant security and practical concerns justified refusal of immediate mandatory relief.