A Principled Approach to Judicial Deference for Hong Kong

  • Cora ChanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 39)


This chapter outlines the approach to deference that Hong Kong courts adopt, evaluates whether such approach is justified, and proposes an approach that should be adopted in light of Hong Kong’s unique constitutional and institutional landscape.



This project is funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (RGC Ref No. 759613).

I thank Francis Chung, Stephanie Leung, Philip Mak, and Allison Wong for their helpful research assistance, and participants at the session on “Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review” at the 2018 Congress of International Academy of Comparative Law for their comments. Special thanks to Francis Chung for his untiring assistance and support throughout the project on deference. All errors are my own.


  1. Allan TRS (2006) Human rights and judicial review: a critique of “due deference”. Camb Law J 65(3):671–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan TRS (2011) Judicial deference and judicial review: legal doctrine and legal theory. Law Q Rev 127:96–117Google Scholar
  3. Barak A (2012) Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady ADP (2012) Proportionality and deference under the UK Human Rights Act: an institutionally sensitive approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan C (2010) Judicial deference at work: some reflections on Chan Kin Sum and Kong Yun Ming. Hong Kong Law J 40:1–14Google Scholar
  6. Chan C (2011) Deference and the separation of powers: an assessment of the court’s constitutional and institutional competences. Hong Kong Law J 41:7–25Google Scholar
  7. Chan C (2013a) Deference, expertise and information-gathering powers. Legal Stud 33(4):598–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan C (2013b) Proportionality and invariable baseline intensity of review. Legal Stud 33(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan C (2016) A preliminary framework for measuring deference in rights reasoning. Int J Const Law 14(4):851–882Google Scholar
  10. Chan C (2018) Rights, proportionality and deference: a study of post-handover judgments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law J 48(1):51–78Google Scholar
  11. Chan C (forthcoming-c) Subnational constitutionalism: Hong Kong. In: Law DS (ed) Constitutionalism in context. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan J (2019) Proportionality after Hysan: fair balance, manifestly without reasonable foundation and Wednesbury unreasonableness. Hong Kong Law J 49(1):265–294Google Scholar
  13. Chan C, de Londras F (eds) (forthcoming-a) China’s national security: endangering Hong Kong’s rule of law? Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan C, de Londras F (forthcoming-b) Building rule of law resilience through institutions: a proposed institutional infrastructure for national security legislation. In: China’s national security: endangering Hong Kong’s rule of law? Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan J, Lim CL (2015) Interpreting constitutional rights and permissible restrictions. In: Chan JSC, Lim CL (eds) Law of the Hong Kong constitution, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London. ch 17Google Scholar
  16. Chan C, Lo PY, Jhaveri S (forthcoming) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. In: Albert R, Landau D, Faraguna P, Drugda Š (eds) The I·CONnect-Clough Center 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law. Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy, Chestnut HillGoogle Scholar
  17. de Londras F (2011) Detention in the “war on terror”: can human rights fight back. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott M (2010) Proportionality and deference: the importance of a structured approach. In: Forsyth C, Elliot M, Jhaveri S et al (eds) Effective judicial review: a cornerstone of good governance. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott M (2015) From bifurcation to calibration: twin-track deference and the culture of justification. In: Wilberg H, Elliott M (eds) The scope and intensity of substantive review: traversing Taggart’s rainbow. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Foley B (2008) Deference and the presumption of constitutionality. Institute of Public Administration, DublinGoogle Scholar
  21. Fu H, Petersen C, Young S (2005) National security and fundamental freedoms: Hong Kong’s article 23 under scrutiny. Hong Kong University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt M (2003) Sovereignty’s blight: why public law needs “due deference”. In: Bamforth N, Leyland P (eds) Public law in a multi-layered constitution. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Jowell J (2003) Judicial deference and human rights: a question of competence. In: Craig P, Rawlings R (eds) Law and administration in Europe: essays in honour of Carol Harlow. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Kavanagh A (2009) Constitutional review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kavanagh A (2010) Defending deference in public law and constitutional theory. Law Q Rev 126:222–250Google Scholar
  26. Kavanagh A (2011) Constitutionalism, counter-terrorism and the courts: changes in the British constitutional landscape. Int J Const Law 9(1):172–199Google Scholar
  27. Kavanagh A (2014) Reasoning about proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998: outcomes, substance and process. Law Q Rev 130:235–258Google Scholar
  28. King J (2008) Institutional approaches to judicial restraint. Oxf J Legal Stud 28(3):409–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King J (2012) Judging social rights. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lai H (2015) Should the deferential ground of “democratic legitimacy” be applicable and applied in Hong Kong? If so, how? Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim E, Chan C (2019) Problems with Wednesbury unreasonableness in contract law: lessons from public law. Law Q Rev 135(Jan):88–113Google Scholar
  32. Rivers J (2006) Proportionality and variable intensity of review. Camb Law J 65(1):174–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong KY (2018) An incomplete victory: the implications of QT v Director of Immigration for the protection of gay rights in Hong Kong. Modern Law Rev 81(5):874–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yap PJ (2007) 10 years of the Basic Law: the rise, retreat and resurgence of judicial power in Hong Kong. Common Law World Rev 36(2):166–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yap PJ (2018) Spouses without benefits: “ring-fencing” marriage after W and QT have unbolted its gates? Hong Kong Law J 48(2):365–374Google Scholar
  36. Young AL (2009) In defence of due deference. Modern Law Rev 72(4):554–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawThe University of Hong KongHong Kong Special Administrative RegionChina

Personalised recommendations