Hong Kong land search rules face scrutiny over media access, privacy and lack of appeals

Nine permitted purposes, but no express category for journalism

Hong Kong plans to require people searching land records to fit their request into one of nine specified purposes, prompting objections from journalists and lawmakers over who will decide whether an investigation serves the public interest. The arrangements are planned for the first half of 2027.

At a Legislative Council subcommittee meeting on November 3, 2026, officials promised decisions on public interest applications within one to two working days after receiving complete information. Other qualifying searches for current entries would receive records immediately. A rejected public interest applicant would have no dedicated appeal mechanism, although officials said applicants could seek reconsideration with new grounds or challenge the decision through judicial review.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) wants the amendments shelved. It cited 18 investigations that relied on land records and that it said could not be carried out under the new arrangements. The association fears that requiring advance approval will obstruct scrutiny of property ownership, suspected wrongdoing and land use.

The government says privacy needs stronger protection. Privacy Commissioner Ada Chung Lai-ling said her office received 20 complaints concerning suspected misuse of land register information over five years, including six in 2026. Complaints involved information used to expose personal details online and to send promotional letters to owners.

The dispute centres on a practical question: how can reporters explain why a search matters before seeing the records that may reveal the story? Officials say applicants need only describe their suspicions and intended use. Journalists and lawmakers want clearer rules, safeguards against refusal and a quicker way to challenge decisions.

What would change for people searching records?

The current arrangements allow members of the public to search land records without providing supporting documents, after declaring compliance with privacy law. The proposed system would instead require a specified purpose and a declaration explaining how the records would be used to achieve it.

The nine purposes include property transactions, valuation, auditing, academic work, property market research and public interest. News reporting is not expressly listed as a category of its own. Media organisations would receive no blanket exemption.

The Legislative Council subcommittee is examining eight pieces of subsidiary legislation connected with the Title Registration System. Subsidiary legislation sets out detailed rules under powers granted by a main law. In this case, those details include how people can inspect land records.

Access would also depend on the type of record. For information and supporting documents relating to current entries, only applications relying on public interest would require assessment by the Land Registrar. Records relating to past entries would be available to 15 categories of people, including applicants declaring a public interest purpose.

The government has described the register primarily as a tool for keeping the property market working. Buyers, sellers and professionals use it to check ownership and other recorded interests. Journalists use the same information to connect people, companies and properties when investigating matters affecting the public.

Property reporting could still receive immediate access

Doris Ho Pui-ling, permanent secretary for development responsible for planning and lands, told lawmakers that the purpose covering academic work and property market analysis would also cover media reporting about property transactions and housing. Such searches could receive records immediately rather than undergo a public interest assessment.

That clarification addresses part of the HKJA's concern about routine property journalism. Association chair Selina Cheng had warned that the rules could wipe out most daily property reporting and make investigations into possible land misuse impossible. Broader investigations would still depend on whether they fit another permitted purpose or receive public interest approval.

The wording has itself attracted scrutiny. An earlier Development Bureau paper referred to market research or reporting on the property market. The English version of the later wording retained a reference to reporting, while the corresponding Chinese wording omitted it. Ho's explanation gives newsrooms an indication of the government's intended approach, while legislators are seeking greater clarity in the rules.

How officials say public interest applications would work

The Development Bureau has given investigations into large scale unauthorised building works and properties without identifiable owners as examples that could qualify on public interest grounds. The Land Registrar would assess applications individually, considering the purpose, privacy interests, intended use and possible misuse of information.

Land Registrar Bruno Luk Kar-kin said reporters would not need to prove that suspected wrongdoing had occurred. They would need to state their suspicion and explain its relevance to the public interest. Officials could ask for more information before deciding.

Ho said applicants would provide their name and identity card number, together with an explanation of how they intended to use the records. She said the information threshold would be low and that officials were interested in the direction of an investigation rather than a fully developed case.

Speaking on November 6, Ho said the government wanted reporting that served the public interest and expected applications to have a high chance of approval:

We believe that there should be a mechanism – a not too difficult one – for the media to carry out reporting that serves public interest.

Ho also told lawmakers that a reporter who obtained records on public interest grounds but ultimately published nothing would not be making a false declaration merely because the story did not appear. The relevant point would be the suspicion held when applying.

Why investigations do not always follow their original purpose

Rebecca Chan Hoi-yan, a legislator and former journalist, argued that investigations often change direction after reporters inspect records. An inquiry into financial dealings might uncover unauthorised structures or the suspected unlawful sale of small house building rights belonging to indigenous villagers in the New Territories.

Chan cited searches that exposed 11 luxury properties on The Peak allegedly held by Cambodian scam syndicates. She said the discoveries prompted the Department of Justice to freeze the assets. Her example showed how ownership information can help uncover suspected criminal activity beyond an ordinary property transaction.

Committee chairman Andrew Lam Siu-lu asked what would happen if reporters obtained records for one permitted purpose and later used them for a different public interest story. Ho said use must match the declared purpose and advised organisations to submit a further application promptly when the reporting purpose changed.

For newsrooms, that creates a continuing administrative task as an investigation develops. Chan also warned that explaining an inquiry in advance could involve revealing information about a source or disclosing a story before the newsroom was ready.

The HKJA argues that commercial users would retain straightforward access while people investigating ownership and fair dealing would need special approval. Its chair, Selina Cheng, described the concern this way:

"The new arrangement will exacerbate information asymmetry between big developers or property owners, and those less resourceful," she added.

Lawmakers want a route to challenge refusals

Legislative Council Assistant Legal Adviser Vanessa Cheng asked the government to explain what would qualify as public interest and whether examples would be published. The legislature's legal advisers raised more than 20 questions about the arrangements, including refusal grounds and safeguards for applicants.

The questions covered whether assessment factors would appear in the legislation or detailed guidance, and whether the public would be consulted on the criteria. They also asked whether rejected applicants would receive written reasons and an opportunity to make further representations before a refusal.

Luk said existing appeal provisions did not cover refusal of a new land search application. Creating an appeal mechanism would require changes to the main legislation. Judicial review would remain available. This is a court process for examining whether a public authority made a decision lawfully.

Augustine Wong Ho-ming, who represents the real estate and construction sectors, warned that litigation would cost money, take time and reduce a story's news value. He proposed a simplified review process or faster handling for approved media organisations.

Ho said on November 6 that a rejected applicant could submit grounds not previously provided for officials to reconsider. That offers a route back to the decision maker, while lawmakers are seeking a defined review mechanism. The criteria, written refusal procedures and final safeguards remained under scrutiny.

Privacy complaints give the government its case for reform

Privacy Commissioner Ada Chung supports clearer limits on land searches. She said complaints received by her office included personal information taken from land records and placed on social platforms, as well as owners receiving marketing letters after their details were obtained.

Her office received 20 complaints over five years, including six during 2026, and she described signs of deterioration. Chung argued that specifying permitted purposes would help protect owners, make applications easier for departments to handle and give searchers a clearer understanding of lawful use.

The HKJA has argued that the government has not presented sufficient evidence to justify tightening access. Its objection concerns whether the response to misuse would place too heavy a burden on legitimate scrutiny of the property market and public affairs.

Chung said journalists must collect personal data lawfully and fairly. She pointed to section 61 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, under which exemptions concerning the use of personal data for news activities depend on the public interest. She said the proposed public interest requirement for searches followed the same principle.

Access and publication would therefore involve decisions at different stages. Reporters would first have to obtain records through a permitted search purpose, then use the information in accordance with privacy law. The commissioner's position is that journalism receives no general exemption from lawful and fair collection requirements.

Media exemptions and owner notifications divide opinion

Chan proposed treating applications as serving the public interest when filed by a legal representative or newsroom head of a media organisation registered with Government Information Services. She argued that this would give legitimate reporting a more predictable route to records.

Ho rejected a media whitelist, saying the public interest route provided greater flexibility. Kenneth Fok Kai-kong, the legislator representing the publication sector, separately urged a reasonable balance between privacy and the public's right to know, with legitimate journalism treated more leniently.

Fok withdrew from the subcommittee because its meeting conflicted with his attendance at a meeting of the National People's Congress Standing Committee in Beijing. Andrew Lam also urged the government to avoid obstructing reasonable media searches. Former legislator and lawyer Doreen Kong questioned why market researchers should have access that journalists might struggle to obtain.

Officials are also considering notifying owners when someone searches their property records. No final design was given for that proposal. Such a system could help owners understand when their information is accessed, while also alerting a person whose property is the subject of an investigation.

The vehicle records precedent shapes the debate

Luk said the land search arrangements drew on the Transport Department's vehicle register system and relevant court decisions. Journalists have already contested restrictions on access to that register, making its operation a central concern in the land records debate.

Freelance producer Bao Choy was charged in November 2020 over vehicle searches used for an RTHK documentary investigating the July 21, 2019, Yuen Long mob attack. She was convicted in 2021 and fined HK$6,000. The Court of Final Appeal overturned her conviction in 2023.

The government introduced new media access rules for vehicle records in 2024. According to the HKJA, only one of 17 media applications for journalistic purposes was partially approved, and that approval came after considerable delay. The association's legal challenge to those restrictions was dismissed by the High Court in 2026.

The HKJA sees that experience as a warning about relying on individual approvals. Officials instead point to the vehicle system as a model for balancing permitted access with privacy. The disagreement makes the promised speed and openness of the new land search process especially consequential for newsrooms.

The main dates are:

• 2023: The Court of Final Appeal overturned Bao Choy's conviction concerning vehicle record searches.
• 2024: New arrangements governing media access to vehicle records were introduced.
• November 3, 2026: A Legislative Council subcommittee began examining eight pieces of subsidiary legislation linked to the Title Registration System.
• November 6, 2026: Ho said public interest reporting should be allowed and rejected applicants could submit new grounds for reconsideration.
• First half of 2027: The new land search arrangements are planned to take effect.

Key Points

• Land searches would require one of nine specified purposes. Journalism has no express category or blanket exemption.
• Officials say property market reporting could obtain current records immediately. Other journalism could require public interest approval.
• Complete public interest applications would generally receive a decision within one to two working days.
• There would be no dedicated appeal mechanism. Applicants could submit new grounds for reconsideration or seek judicial review.
• The privacy commissioner cited 20 complaints over five years, including six in 2026, involving suspected misuse of land register information.
• The HKJA wants the amendments shelved, while lawmakers seek clearer criteria and stronger safeguards for reporting.
• The arrangements are planned for the first half of 2027. Authorities are also considering notifying owners when their properties are searched.