Top 10 Legal Cases All Hong Kong Law Students Should Know

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) HKCFA 72
This landmark case concerned the right of abode of mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents. The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruled in favour of Ng, asserting that such children had a constitutional right to reside in Hong Kong under the Basic Law. However, following political pressure, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) issued an interpretation overriding the CFA’s ruling, igniting a constitutional crisis over the limits of Hong Kong’s judicial autonomy.

Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board (2016) HKCFA 66
This case tested the proportionality test in assessing constitutional rights under the Basic Law. Hysan challenged zoning restrictions imposed by the Town Planning Board as disproportionate and infringing on property rights. The CFA upheld the test’s applicability to economic rights, affirming that restrictions must be rational, necessary, and balanced. This judgment clarified Hong Kong’s approach to constitutional review and its human rights jurisprudence, particularly regarding property and planning law.

W v Registrar of Marriages (2013) HKCFA 39
This was a landmark case on transgender rights, where a post-operative transgender woman challenged the Registrar’s refusal to allow her to marry her male partner. The CFA held that such refusal violated her rights under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. The court recognised the right to marry for transgender individuals in their acquired gender, marking a significant step for LGBTQ+ rights in Hong Kong.

Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration (2013) HKCFA 115
This case involved foreign domestic workers seeking permanent residency in Hong Kong. The CFA ruled that foreign domestic helpers are not “ordinarily resident” under immigration law due to their contractual conditions and thus ineligible for right of abode. The judgment drew international attention and criticism, raising debates about equality, immigration policy, and the treatment of migrant workers in Hong Kong.

Kwok Wing Hang v Chief Executive (2020) HKCFA 42
During the 2019 protests, this case challenged the Chief Executive’s use of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO) to ban face coverings. The CFA ruled that the ERO was constitutional, and upheld the ban on masks in unauthorised assemblies. However, it struck down its application to authorised gatherings, finding it disproportionate. The case defined the limits of executive power during public emergencies and the scope of freedom of assembly under the Basic Law.

Leung Kwok Hung v HKSAR (2005) HKCFA 47
Leung Kwok Hung, a legislator, challenged restrictions on public assembly under the Public Order Ordinance. The CFA ruled that requiring prior notification for public gatherings was constitutional but must be exercised with strict scrutiny to protect freedom of expression and assembly. The case established key principles of proportionality and necessity in evaluating government limitations on civil liberties under the Basic Law.

Secretary for Justice v Yau Yuk Lung (2007) HKCFA 50
In this case, two men were charged under a law criminalising homosexual conduct between men in public places. The CFA struck down the law as discriminatory and unconstitutional, marking a significant step in equal protection and non-discrimination under Hong Kong law. The court confirmed that sexual orientation is a protected ground, and legislation must meet the test of justification and proportionality if it treats groups differently.

Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) HKCFA 48
The CFA ruled that a child born in Hong Kong to non-resident parents was entitled to permanent residency under the Basic Law. This affirmed jus soli (right of the soil) in Hong Kong, causing political controversy and prompting further NPCSC interpretation. The case underscored tensions between judicial autonomy and mainland oversight, and the scope of the Basic Law on residency rights.

Chan Kam Nga v Director of Immigration (2001) HKCFA 46
This case concerned whether mainland children could apply for right of abode under Article 24 of the Basic Law. The CFA ruled that those born outside Hong Kong to Hong Kong permanent residents were entitled to apply, but the NPCSC’s prior interpretation was binding. This further demonstrated the limits of judicial power in the face of NPCSC supremacy, and the role of constitutional interpretations from Beijing.

HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) HKCFA 3
The CFA clarified the mental element for fraud under Section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210). Adopting the Ghosh test, the Court ruled that dishonesty requires: (1) an objective finding that the conduct was dishonest by ordinary reasonable standards, and (2) subjective awareness by the defendant that their actions were dishonest. The decision is crucial for defining criminal liability, particularly in cases involving fraud and white-collar crime.