Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tribunal powers

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2021

李振雄對上訴審裁小組（建築物條例）主席

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1986
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL885/2021

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to show arguable grounds with realistic prospects: the Appeal Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in dismissing the appeal after the Building Authority revoked the order; the Tribunal lacked power to compel the Building Authority to provide the explanations sought; the applicant's claims were speculative and did not justify judicial review.
3 Feb 2016

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2015

The words 'the Tribunal' in Regulation s6(3) refer to the tribunal appointed under s48(1) of the Buildings Ordinance (the chairman together with not less than two members); because the Regulation does not contain an express provision equivalent to s13(2) permitting the chairman alone to decide inspection applications, the chairman lacked jurisdiction to determine the inspection application alone, so his decision is quashed and the matter must be reheard by a tribunal comprising a chairman and members (not the same chairman).
29 May 2014

MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO AND OTHERS

Citation

MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS28000/2012

The Tribunal held that an order for sale and any subsequent auction are confined to the lots the subject of the application; the Tribunal lacks power to compel combined sale of adjoining lots not before it; accordingly the reserve price must be assessed on the redevelopment potential of the subject Lots alone, without regard to adjoining lots.
15 Jun 2005

KIU WAN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS (SCHEDULED) SERVICE CO LTD v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

KIU WAN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS (SCHEDULED) SERVICE CO LTD v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL103/2004

The judicial review is dismissed: the Tribunal did not err in refusing to direct the Commissioner how to allocate marks because the Tribunal lacks power to direct the exercise of the Commissioner's statutory discretion under s35(2) RTO; fares, basic frequency and vehicle numbers were mandatory tender/licensing conditions not selectable scoring items and the Commissioner lawfully treated them as such; the temporary PSL was lawfully granted and its continuance pending resolution of proceedings to avoid service disruption was proper.
30 Mar 1992

LEUNG WING YIU v. TECH-FLO ELECTRONICS LTD.

Citation

LEUNG WING YIU v. TECH-FLO ELECTRONICS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA1/1992

The tribunal has statutory power under section 20 to order production of documents even if a party chooses not to give oral evidence; where central documents are in a party's possession the tribunal should order production and may treat documents referred to in evidence by the other party (such as PD9) as admissible; the tribunal's refusal to order production and its exclusion of PD9 was erroneous and the matter must be remitted for determination with directions to order production and admit the appellant's evidence regarding August sales.

Hong Kong Case Law

李振雄 對 上訴審裁小組（建築物條例）主席

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO AND OTHERS

KIU WAN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS (SCHEDULED) SERVICE CO LTD v. TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

LEUNG WING YIU v. TECH-FLO ELECTRONICS LTD.

李振雄對上訴審裁小組（建築物條例）主席