Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vacation of office

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2017

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because, although the questions raised were of public importance, the applicants failed to show reasonable prospects of success: the non-intervention argument was unarguable as it would oust the courts' constitutional duty to adjudicate article 104 compliance; the NPCSC Interpretation is a binding legislative interpretation under article 158 that can supplement and be retrospective; vacation under s21 operates automatically; and the Chief Executive had locus in the circumstances.
16 Jan 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Citation

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/2016

Leave to appeal refused because, although the questions raised are of great public importance, they have no reasonable prospects of success: the non‑intervention principle cannot displace courts' constitutional duty to adjudicate compliance with Basic Law art 104; NPCSC interpretations under art 158 are binding, can supplement law and operate retrospectively; vacation under s21 is automatic; and the Chief Executive has locus in these proceedings; accordingly the Court of Appeal refused leave.
16 Jan 2017

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions, while of public importance, lacked reasonable prospects of success: the non-intervention principle cannot displace the courts' constitutional duty to adjudicate compliance with Basic Law article 104; NPCSC interpretations made pursuant to article 158 are binding and may clarify or supplement the Basic Law with retrospective effect; the court must conduct full merits review of oath validity; vacation under s21 is automatic; the Chief Executive had locus to bring the proceedings in the circumstances; accordingly leave was denied and costs order…
30 Nov 2016

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/2016

Article 104 is a constitutional requirement enforceable by the courts; the NPCSC Interpretation clarifies that declining or deliberately invalid oath-taking results in immediate disqualification; section 21 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance gives statutory effect to that consequence and causes automatic vacation of office; the non-intervention principle does not prevent judicial adjudication of compliance with constitutional oath requirements; the President/Clerk has administrative duties but not exclusive judicial fact-finding power to override the courts; appeals dismissed.
30 Nov 2016

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2016

Article 104 is a constitutional prerequisite to assuming LegCo office; the NPCSC Interpretation clarifies that declining to take the oath results in immediate disqualification; section 21 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance effects automatic vacation of office upon such declining or neglect; the common law non-intervention principle does not bar judicial adjudication of compliance with constitutional requirements; the courts therefore have jurisdiction to declare that Leung and Yau vacated their offices and to dismiss the appeals.
26 Apr 2001

FONG LAI KUEN v. HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

FONG LAI KUEN v. HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1530/1998

Because the AGM was invalid for insufficient notice, any retirements communicated at that nullity could not operate to vacate office; therefore the directors had not vacated office and validly constituted the board which held the Board Meeting and appointed additional directors; the EGM of 21 May 1998 was valid, the poll (29–1) properly recorded and the share allotments pursuant to it were valid; accordingly the plaintiff's claims fail.

Hong Kong Case Law

(16/01/2017) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND ANOTHER v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND OTHERS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER v. YAU WAI CHING AND ANOTHER

FONG LAI KUEN v. HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND OTHERS