Key Court Cases
A parent’s sexual orientation is not an automatically disqualifying factor in cases involving child custody.
The right to equality doesn’t mean all differences in treatment would be discriminatory but differential treatment can only be justified if it meets three legal tests.
Differential treatment based on grounds like race, sex and sexual orientation would attract intense scrutiny.
Pre-operative transgender inmates cannot serve their time in a prison that aligns with their affirmed gender identity.
Transgender inmates should have access to hormonal treatment while in custody.
The Court of Final Appeal held that that the Immigration Department’s differential treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples in its dependent visa policy constituted an unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Also, the court established the principle that differential treatment in policy policy due to sexual orientation will attract intense scrutiny, and absent a compelling justification, will be deemed unconstitutional.
The court struck down the remaining discriminatory criminal offences on Hong Kong’s statute books that related only to gay men.
Same-sex couples legally married are eligible for joint income tax assessment.
Spouses of gay civil servants are entitled to receive spousal benefits.
The court ruled against same-sex civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
A Uganda national raised a non-refoulment claim of protection on the basis that if she returns to Uganda, she will be harmed or killed for being a lesbian. Her application is denied.
The Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board have to follow a new guidance in their fact-finding determination of whether gays or lesbians have well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries.
*Leave to apply for judicial review granted.
The Court of First Instance has ruled that the exclusion of spouses to same-sex marriages from legal entitlements and benefits under intestacy and inheritance laws is discriminatory.
The Court of Final Appeal held in favour of the applicants in their bid to change their gender on their Hong Kong Identity Cards without undergoing full gender affirmation surgery.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Housing Authority’s appeal and affirmed the lower court's original decision which held that the differential treatment under the Spousal Policy is discriminatory. Married same-sex couples are eligible to apply for public rental housing as ordinary families.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Housing Authority's appeal and affirmed the Court of First Instance decision, which held that the differential treatment in the spousal policy under the Home Ownership Scheme constituted an unlawful discrimination and thus unconstitutional.
The Court of Final Appeal in a 3-2 majority, held that the government has a positive obligation to provide an alternative framework to recognize same-sex partnerships. On the other hand, the court unanimously held that there isn't a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The Court of First Instance ruled that that a lesbian who provided an egg but did not carry the baby through reciprocal IVF is to be known as "parent at common law". In essence, the court awarded equal parental status to the lesbian couple.