Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tribunal jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

WARNAKULASURIYA MARIYA INDIKA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL948/2020

The court dismissed the 1st applicant's leave application for lack of a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects, but extended time and granted leave to the 2nd applicant because the 2nd applicant raised reasonably arguable legal questions (notably the Board's jurisdiction regarding a stateless person and the prospect of removal), and directed the 2nd applicant to issue an originating summons by 15 April 2026.
26 Mar 2026

LEE KAM LEUNG PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUIDLINGS)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL456/2025

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held the Building Authority had statutory power under s24 BO and s46 IGCO to issue the 2021 substituted order; the Appeal Tribunal was not functus officio and correctly held the 2021 order did not amount to res judicata or abuse of process; the BAT acted within its wide discretion in ordering costs (including Preliminary Hearing costs) and in assessing the BA’s stated costs at HK$294,071 given the applicants’ failure to respond or propose an alternative taxation procedure.
5 Mar 2025

健威營造有限公司對秦頌德

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/2025

Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the tribunal correctly applied Employment Ordinance s40 to find the applicant, not having been continuously employed for three months, was not entitled to statutory holiday pay; the chat records were inadmissible new evidence under Ladd v Marshall because the applicant had them and could have produced them at the original hearing and they would not have had an important influence on the result; post‑hearing submissions were properly refused.
3 May 2024

EXPLORER 1881 LTD v. CONCEPT 1 OCEAN (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD246/2024

The Tribunal admitted the Intended Respondent as a respondent because on the balance of probabilities the Intended Respondent remained in possession and the applicant failed to prove eviction or that the 2014 tenant had surrendered possession to the 2020 tenant; however the substantive application for possession was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant was not the registered owner and there was no evidence the applicant had the requisite possession to bring the claim.
29 Jun 2022

SIU YAT FUNG ANTHONY t/a ANTHONY SIU & CO. v. THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2021

The Joint Tribunal's Decision is amenable to judicial review because the Tribunal exercises public functions under rules that are the functional equivalent of subsidiary legislation integrated into the statutory disciplinary regime; accordingly the proper respondent to a challenge is the Joint Tribunal rather than individual tribunal members or solely the two Councils.
28 Oct 2020

LI CHUN WUI v. HENG XIN MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2744
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA13/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the Presiding Officer did not err in law: the factual findings and inferences were reasonable and supported by evidence, the indoor management rule precluded challenge to the remuneration validity on the material before the Tribunal, and several proposed grounds failed to satisfy procedural requirements for an arguable appeal under s32(2) LTO.
5 Sept 2019

何毓桓對律政司司長

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA13/2019

The solitary confinement order was an administrative decision made under Prison Rules r.68B; challenges to its legality are public law matters for judicial review, outside the remedial and jurisdictional scope of the Small Claims Tribunal, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error by the Tribunal warranting grant of leave to appeal; leave is refused.
14 Jan 2019

UNIVERSAL MUSIC LTD v. NEWAY MUSIC LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 61
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1738/2017

The defendants' defence re s.156(3)-(4) was an abuse of process because those issues had been decided in the prior discharge decision; the defendants unreasonably challenged the plaintiff's ownership; accordingly the application to vary costs was dismissed and indemnity costs (with certificate for two counsel) were awarded to the plaintiff for the action and for the application.
3 Dec 2018

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 88
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM89/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's intended grounds did not show reasonable prospects of success or any other interest of justice: (1) the tribunal correctly held that the management committee is not a separate legal entity that must be joined where the allegations are directed at the incorporated owners; (2) sections C4 and C5 of the Notice of Application were properly retained as the Lands Tribunal can consider whether the IO has failed to take effective steps in relation to an HCCT order without adjudicating breaches of that order; (3) the Lands Tribunal has statutory exc…
6 May 2016

FIRST KIND LTD v. UNION ESSENCE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

FIRST KIND LTD v. UNION ESSENCE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS20000/2014

The Tribunal held it has a discretionary power under s.4(6)(a)(i) to give directions that enable lots which are subjects of different applications to be sold together (by giving parallel consequential directions in each application), but s.4(6)(a)(i) does not empower the Tribunal to alter the statutory reserve price formula in Schedule 2 paragraph 2. Consequently the reserve price must be the aggregate of the individual lots' redevelopment values assessed on an 'on its own' basis; market forces at auction may achieve a higher merged-site price. The six applications should be heard together fo…