郭卓堅 對 法援署副署長莊因東及另一人

郭卓堅 對 法援署副署長莊因東及另一人

The Court held the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and therefore refused leave to appeal; the Court confirmed the applicant must use the statutory appeal mechanism under s26 of the Legal Aid...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCA 876
Parties
Applicant: 郭卓堅; Suggested Respondent: 法援署副署長莊因東; Suggested Respondent: 法援署高級律師劉嘉駿
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2018
Case Number
CACV295/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) of the CFA Ordinance
Outcome
application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Statutory Appeal Mechanism Under Legal Aid Ordinance S26, Fairness of Refusal Under Legal Aid Rules R11(1)(b)
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Statutory Appeal Mechanism Under Legal Aid Ordinance S26 Fairness of Refusal Under Legal Aid Rules R11(1)(b)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

郭卓堅

Applicant

法援署副署長莊因東

Suggested Respondent

法援署高級律師劉嘉駿

Suggested Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) of the CFA Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises questions of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant may bypass the statutory appeal mechanism in the Legal Aid Ordinance (s26) to seek judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Director's use of Legal Aid Rules r11(1)(b) to render the applicant ineligible for three years or to refuse right to judicial review for multiple refusal certificates is unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and therefore refused leave to appeal; the Court confirmed the applicant must use the statutory appeal mechanism under s26 of the Legal Aid Ordinance and cannot bypass it by seeking judicial review; the applicant was ordered to pay costs of HK$30,000 to the suggested respondents.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • Notice of motion filed 10 September 2018 is rescinded