The following cases were recently reported by the Hon Mr Justice Bokhary. See below for His Lordship’s remarks and observations by way of Editor’s Notes.

HKSAR v Ha But Yee (哈弼意) [2025] 2 HKLRD 468

“What this judgment decides is outlined in the catchwords and detailed in the above holdings.”

Choi Ka Man v Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong [2025] 2 HKLRD 628

“Holdings (2) and (4) are essentially fact-specific while holdings (1), (3), (5) and (6) involve points of principle.”

Samsung SDI (Hong Kong) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2025] 2 HKLRD 661

“(1) This judgment’s importance is outlined in the catchwords and detailed in the above holdings.

(2) In the present case, there was a delay of eight years and two months between the conclusion of the hearing before the Board of Review and the handing-down of its decision. The learned Judge pointedly referred to the dire consequences that such delay can have on, not only the immediate parties, but also on the repute of the system.

(3) It is therefore timely to call attention to certain observations made by each of the five members of the panel in ING Baring Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2007) 10 HKCFAR 417. Those observations appear at paras.4, 17, 113, 115 and 179 respectively of the report of that case. They are to the following effect. There appears much to be said for urgent consideration being given, in the appropriate quarters, to the question of whether the public interests in present-day Hong Kong calls for, if not a new body composed of full-time personnel to take over some or all of the Board of Review’s work, then at least an overhaul of the way in which the Board of Review is composed and resourced. This involves no criticism of those willing to take time out of their busy schedules to serve on the Board of Review. What it does perhaps involve is whether it is fair to expect them to do so under present conditions.”