The law of Hong Kong has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. The primary legislation are enacted by the Legislative Council, usually known as "Ordinances", instead of "Acts". The published, consolidated copies of Ordinances are given chapter numbers in Laws of Hong Kong and in the official online database. Inherited from the common law system, another source of law is case law derived from precedent decisions.

Since the handover on 1 July 1997, Hong Kong's constitutional framework is provided by the Basic Law, a national law enacted by the Chinese National People's Congress (NPC). The principle of "one country, two systems" was enshrined in Article 5 of the Basic Law, preserving Hong Kong's capitalist system and way of life until at least 2047. However, Hong Kong's autonomy has increasingly been influenced by Beijing. The Standing Committee of the NPC's interpretations on the Basic Law have affected issues including residency rights, electoral reform, and the qualifications of legislators. The 2021 electoral reforms further strengthened Beijing's oversight by introducing candidate vetting requirements and restructuring the electoral system to ensure that only "patriots" could hold public office.

Some national laws on foreign affairs, the national emblem and flag, and national security apply directly in Hong Kong by virtue of stipulations in Article 18 and Annex III of the Basic Law. The enactment of the national security law in 2020 marked a significant change. Imposed directly under Annex III of the Basic Law, the law has been used to arrest and prosecute politicians, activists, journalists, and others accused of national security offences.

History Hong Kong's legal system was developed under British governance and is based on the English common law. Under British rule, the constitutional documents that governed Hong Kong were the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions, both issued by the royal prerogative. Although prerogative legislation was formally enacted in the name of the British monarchs, it was typically promulgated by the Privy Council as the Orders in Council. The Letters Patent established the constitutional framework by defining the authority of the Executive Council, Legislative Council, and judiciary. They were the most fundamental, while the Royal Instructions supplemented them by regulating the operation of the executive and legislative branches. The Legislative Council could legislate only within the authority conferred by the Letters Patent, and ordinances inconsistent with it could be declared invalid by the courts.

In addition to prerogative legislation, certain laws applicable to Hong Kong were enacted by the UK Parliament through Acts of Parliament. Prior to the 1997 handover, around 300 UK Acts were applicable in Hong Kong, covering copyright, patent, maritime, and aviation. Judicial cases were generally appealable to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. Furthermore, elements of the Great Qing Legal Code were also retained as customary law to facilitate the transition to British rule, particularly in relation to Chinese marriage, inheritance, and land rights. These customary rules were gradually replaced over time. For example, the Marriage Reform (Amendment) Ordinance 1971 abolished the legal recognition of concubinage and the mui tsai system, while the New Territories Land (Exemption) Ordinance 1995 banned discrimination against women in inheritance rights.

In the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, the UK and the PRC mutually agreed that Hong Kong would be returned to China on 1 July 1997. It also provided that, under the principle of "one country, two systems," Hong Kong's capitalist system, common law legal system and way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years until 2047. To give effect to the handover, the UK parliament enacted Hong Kong Act 1985, which provided that British sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong would cease on 1 July 1997. Consequently, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 also ceased to apply. Since neither the Joint Declaration nor the Basic Law provided for the continued application of legislation enacted under the royal prerogative or Acts of the Parliament after the handover, the colonial government began the process of reviewing and localising laws since 1985. Approximately 150 Acts were subsequently incorporated into local law.

Basic law In June 1985, National People's Congress established the Basic Law Drafting Committee to prepare the constitutional framework for Hong Kong's return. The Basic Law, enacted in accordance with Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution, is the constitutional document in Hong Kong. It defines Hong Kong's status as a Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), enshrines the principle of "one country, two systems," and sets out the powers and autonomy of the HKSAR. It preserves Hong Kong's common law system by maintaining pre-1997 laws, while also contains provisions that offer protection for human rights in Hong Kong.

According to the Basic Law, national laws apply directly in Hong Kong by virtue of stipulations in Article 18 and Annex III of the Basic Law. As of July 2026, 13 national laws are listed in Annex III, including laws relating to the national flag, national emblem, national anthem (2017), and the national security law (2020), which has been used to arrest and prosecute politicians, activists, journalists, and others accused of national security offences.

Bilingualism Hong Kong's legal system gradually evolved from being English-only to becoming bilingual in English and Chinese. Before 1974, English was the sole official language, and only English legislation had legal effect. Although the Official Languages Ordinance of 1974 recognized both English and Chinese as official languages for government communication, it did not apply to legislation or court proceedings. The Sino-British Joint Declaration provided for the basis for Chinese legislation. In 1986, the Royal Instructions amended to allow laws to be enacted in English or Chinese. It was followed by amendments to the Official Languages Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in 1987. Meanwhile, older legislation was translated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and given equal legal status after reviewed by the Bilingual Laws Advisory Committee (a similar body, Committee on the Bilingual Legal System, would form in 1998 after the handover) and published on the Government Gazette. The first bilingual ordinance to be enacted by the Legislative Council was the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance, which was passed into law in April 1989. By 1997, most statutory laws had official Chinese versions. The judiciary also introduced reforms allowing Chinese to be used in court proceedings where appropriate.

As of 2025, over 80% of criminal cases in the Magistrates' Courts and District Court were heard in Chinese, as were nearly 90% of Magistracy Appeals heard by the High Court. However, Chinese remains less common in the High Court because legal bilingualism presents significant challenges, including the shortage of bilingual legal professionals, the complexity of multilingual court procedures, and the continued reliance on English-language common law precedents. In 2022, Stuart Hargreaves, an associate professor in the Faculty of Law of CUHK, reported that only about 25% of the substantive Court of Final Appeal judgments have been officially translated into Chinese since 1997.

Legal areas

Administrative law

Administrative law in Hong Kong is heavily based on its counterpart in England and Wales, especially its principles and procedures of judicial review, though there is some divergence in various areas. Although its administrative tribunals share the same origins, they have seen little systematic reform over the past decades. The exercise of governmental and public powers is subject to both judicial and non-judicial oversight. Non-judicial oversight mechanisms include the Principal Officials Accountability System, the Code on Access to Information (公開資料守則), public consultations, statutory advisory bodies (e.g., District Councils), administrative tribunals (e.g., the Appeal Board on Public Meetings and Processions), independent complaint-handling bodies (e.g., the Office of the Ombudsman, Equal Opportunities Commission, and Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data), the Legislative Council, and the government's own internal oversight mechanisms.

A number of administrative laws have drawn criticism for violating human rights in Hong Kong. Most notably the colonial-era Public Order Ordinance (POO), a direct result of the 1967 riots, has been used to suppress the 2019 protests. According to Section 18(1) of POO, an "Unlawful Assembly" is defined broadly as "[w]hen 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner [...]". The subsequent legal procedure and appeals were also accused of being weaponized by the Hong Kong government. Out of 20 appeals filed by DOJ, 13 converted non-custodial sentences into imprisonment, including ex-legislator Au Nok-hin, who received a nine-week prison for assault by speaking through a megaphone near an officer; five increased prison terms by at least three months; remaining two replaced protection orders with probation.

Contracts and obligations

Hong Kong contract law traditionally follows the common law principle of freedom of contract with limited judicial intervention against unfair terms. Although courts could imply terms based on public policy, express contractual clauses often limited such protection, leaving weaker parties vulnerable to harsh provisions. Statutory control of unfair contract terms developed relatively late. Following the Law Reform Commission's review in 1987, its recommendations were implemented in 1994 through the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (Cap. 457) and the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Ordinance 1994.

The Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) provides further protection by allowing courts to consider whether a contract is unconscionable. In Shum Kit Ching v Caesar Beauty Centre Ltd. (2003; HCSA 38/2002), the court held that unfairness should be assessed by examining the overall circumstances and bargaining process, rather than the contractual term alone. In Sinoearn International Ltd v Hyundai-CCECC Joint Venture (2013; FACV 22/2012), the Court of Final Appeal drew on case law from across various common law jurisdictions and confirmed that the courts can interpret contracts using "commercial common sense", but cannot "construct" a contract to accommodate the profit or other expectations of any of the parties to the contract.

Criminal law

Family law Family law in Hong Kong is heavily modelled on its counterpart in England and Wales with important modifications.

Ancillary relief