SHAM TSZ KIT (岑子杰) V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

[2023] HKCFA 28 Court of Final Appeal 5 September 2023 • FACV14/2022 • 133 min read
36 cases cited (0 HK, 36 foreign) Cited by 6 cases

Outcome

Appeal allowed

we would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Source: [2023] HKCFA 28, Court of Final Appeal, decided 5 September 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Judges (5)

Counsel (8)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

SHAM TSZ KIT (岑子杰) V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 28 is a Court of Final Appeal judgment dated 5 September 2023, engaging the Basic Law — including Articles 25, 29, 37, 39(1) and 40 — together with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal held that "we would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal," recording the outcome as an appeal allowed. The judgment was followed shortly afterward by a further Court of Final Appeal ruling between the same parties, SHAM TSZ KIT V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 31. It has since been cited in later Basic Law and constitutional litigation, including NG HON LAM EDGAR V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2024] HKCA 184, THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY V. INFINGER, NICK [2024] HKCFA 12, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V. LI YIK HO [2024] HKCFA 30, and HKSAR V. SO TSUN FUNG [2025] HKCFI 2466 and [2025] HKCFI 916.

Summary

Sham Tsz Kit, in a same-sex marriage contracted in New York, challenged Hong Kong's lack of any legal framework for recognising same-sex relationships. The Court of Final Appeal held that while there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the Basic Law, the government has a positive obligation to provide an alternative framework for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. The appeal was allowed in part.

What did the Court of Final Appeal hold in SHAM TSZ KIT (岑子杰) V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 28?

In [2023] HKCFA 28, dated 5 September 2023, the Court of Final Appeal held it "would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal," recording the outcome as an appeal allowed under Basic Law and Bill of Rights provisions.

What legislation was engaged in SHAM TSZ KIT V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 28?

The judgment engaged the Basic Law — including Articles 25, 29, 37, 39(1) and 40 — the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, all bearing on the appeal's constitutional questions.

Which later cases cite SHAM TSZ KIT V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 28?

Later citing decisions include SHAM TSZ KIT V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2023] HKCFA 31, NG HON LAM EDGAR V. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [2024] HKCA 184, THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY V. INFINGER, NICK [2024] HKCFA 12, and SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V. LI YIK HO [2024] HKCFA 30.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (36)

UK (6)
[1930] AC 124 [2013] 1 WLR 3741 [2017] 1 WLR 3369 [2018] QB 519 [2020] AC 1 [2022] AC 487
HK (30)
(1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 (1999) 2 HKCFAR 442 (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211 (2001) 4 HKCFAR 474 (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381 (2002) 5 HKCFAR 480 (2003) 6 HKCFAR 236 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170 (2012) 15 HKCFAR 409 (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743 (2013) 16 HKCFAR 112 (2014) 17 HKCFAR 138 (2018) 21 HKCFAR 324 (2019) 22 HKCFAR 127 (2019) 22 HKCFAR 59 (2020) 23 HKCFAR 15 (2020) 23 HKCFAR 518 (2021) 24 HKCFAR 349 (2023) 26 HKCFAR 25 [2007] 2 HKLRD 804 [2010] 3 HKLRD 371 [2018] 3 HKLRD 84 [2019] 5 HKLRD 259 [2020] 1 HKLRD 1188 [2020] 4 HKLRD 908 [2020] 4 HKLRD 930 [2021] 3 HKLRD 427 [2022] 4 HKLRD 368 [2022] HKCA 1690

Cited By (6)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 10 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2023] HKCFA 28)