 was recently a guest speaker at the Hong Kong Trustees’ Association 35

 Anniversary Conference titled “35 years of Transformation in the Hong Kong Trust Industry”, where he addressed recent jurisprudential developments in the private wealth and trust sphere and practical perspectives on common issues encountered by trustees in the administration of trust.

Special thanks to the Hong Kong Trustees’ Association for the invitation and organisation of the event.

 [2026] HKCFI 2044, Mr Justice Coleman has given judgment in a widely-reported case concerning changes to residency requirements for subsidised places at local universities.

The Applicants are children holding dependant visas and studying in Mainland secondary schools under international curricula and intending to apply in late 2026 for tertiary courses in Hong Kong starting in the 2027/28 academic year. In July 2025, the Education Bureau revised its prevailing policy to impose a residency requirement for such individuals, requiring them to have resided in Hong Kong for 1 year before being eligible for subsidised places in tertiary institutions (the “One-Year Rule”).

The Applicants challenged the One-Year Rule by way of judicial review on the twin bases that it (1) was irrational in failing to achieve its own express purpose, as a transitional period, of affording families time to make appropriate arrangements to avoid being impacted by the policy change, and (2) discriminated against the Applicants’ class of individuals.

The Court decided in the Respondent’s favour.

On irrationality, the Court accepted that the express wording of the policy shows that the policy maker anticipated, and perhaps intended, that individuals in the Applicants’ position could avoid the impact of the policy change by meeting the residency requirement; it also accepted that a school transfer at short notice or in the last year of an international curriculum was not practically feasbile, at least not without imposing a serious disadvantage on the Applicants’ education and university prospects. The Court nonetheless held that the policy maker’s failure to take into account the impact on the Applicants was not sufficiently material to justify the quashing of the One-Year Rule as irrational.

On discrimination, the Court held that the constitutional challenge was not made out. The Court affirmed the principles that it will not generally interfere with matters of government policy in socio-economic or general policy matters not involving core values or fundamental concepts, and that it looks at the compatibility of the system overall without giving undue weight to individual circumstances. The Court held that the institution of the One-Year Rule, which involves the allocation of finite public resources, is within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the Government and not discriminatory.

, instructed by Dentons, acted for the Applicants.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

High Court upholds tightening of university subsidy regime for dependant visa holders

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Jonathan Ng at the Hong Kong Trustees’ Association 35th Anniversary Conference

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New