A new decision from the Court of Final Appeal affirms that the city’s common law is entirely its own.
It is frequently claimed that the common law represents one of Hong Kong’s most valuable resources. It offers us a body of law that has shared roots with those of numerous well-established legal systems. It facilitates dialogue among our legal professionals and with their counterparts in other regions.
Being the sole common law jurisdiction where both Chinese and English are official languages utilized in court, Hong Kong serves as the bridge between China and the common law system.
But what exactly is the common law system in Hong Kong?
Are you curious about the most significant issues and developments happening globally? Find the solutions withSCMP Knowledge, our latest platform offering carefully selected content including explainers, FAQs, analyses, and infographics, presented by our acclaimed team.
The phrase “the common law” can have various interpretations. Its definition depends on the situation. Specifically, when compared to statutes or written laws, “common law” refers to a set of rules developed through judicial decisions.
Case law serves as a crucial foundation of legal principles in common law systems. As a young law student, it took me considerable time to fully grasp this concept. In essence, the notion is that written laws cannot address every facet of human behavior, and when a specific case lacks a clear solution in statutory law, judges—acting as state authorities with the power to resolve conflicts—must determine what is just.
They outline their justifications in rulings, and subsequent courts will strive to maintain that the law remains logical and uniform, ensuring that a valid reason for a decision in an earlier case also serves as a valid basis for the same decision in later cases.
Of course, the rules of precedent (in Latin)stare decisis) are somewhat more intricate than my basic summary above. However, the main concept is that common law emphasizes “authority,” meaning the rulings made by authoritative courts in previous cases. Decisions from higher courts should be binding for lower and subsequent courts. This ensures uniformity, clarity, and logical consistency within the legal system.
What, then, constitutes “authority” in modern-day Hong Kong? Due to historical factors, numerous of our common law principles originate from rulings in England and Wales or the broader United Kingdom. Indeed, prior to 1997, the final appeals from Hong Kong were considered by the Privy Council in London, and their judgments formed part of Hong Kong’s legal framework. These rulings were and continue to be binding on all courts within Hong Kong.
What about abroad, specifically, the English authorities in Hong Kong after 1997? Their status was unclear until recently.
The Supreme Court of Final Appeal explained the stance in their ruling inWong Chi Hung vs Lo Wing Pun& another [2026] HKCFA 14 issued last month.
The details and specific findings of the case, which are intriguing for other reasons, are not pertinent to the current discussion. What is important is the statement made by the Chief Justice, with the consensus of the entire court, in paragraphs 23 to 32 of the ruling.
In conclusion, the Chief Justice stated that, concerning UK rulings, only those from the Privy Council prior to July 1, 1997, related to appeals from Hong Kong are legally binding in Hong Kong, except for any later deviations by the Court of Final Appeal.
All other UK rulings are not mandatory, although the strength of their reasoning might lead to their adoption. This is also applicable to decisions, including those from their highest courts, in common law systems like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore. No specific jurisdiction is given any unique standing based on the origin of its legal authorities.
Specifically, the Chief Justice mentioned in paragraph 31 that “the constitutional clauses of the Basic Law regarding the sources of laws in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, including Articles 8, 18(1), and 84, clearly indicate that the common law in Hong Kong is the common law of Hong Kong, not that of England and Wales, or any other common law system.”
The Hong Kong common law thus constitutes a separate legal system, even though we derive significant advantage from the insights of other common law systems as well.
One of the many positive aspects of being a barrister is the opportunity to help shape our legal system. As my friend and colleague Victor Dawes SC mentioned in this column last week, the common law evolves gradually as advocates present their strongest arguments to judges during open discussions about what the law is or what it should be. By engaging in courtroom debates, we each play a modest role in the development of Hong Kong’s unique common law.
Bernard Man SC currently serves as the chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association’s committee focused on land, trusts, and probate, and is a civil litigation specialist.
“Legal Tales” is a weekly feature written by senior members of the Hong Kong Bar Association, offering their insights on contemporary issues.
More Articles from SCMP
The first perfumer of Cartier, Mathilde Laurent, on her journey through scents
What to view at Shangri-La Dialogue following Trump’s China visit that redefines relations
This piece was first published in the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), a top news outlet covering China and Asia.
Copyright (c) 2026. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
jasdooit 
Leave a comment