FOK CHUN WA AND ANOTHER v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

FOK CHUN WA AND ANOTHER v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Applicants are materially and relevantly different from eligible Hong Kong residents; equality provisions are not engaged; even if engaged the Policy and Decision pursue legitimate aims and satisfy the justification/proportionality test; the Hospital Authority and Secretary acted within powers under the HAO; the refusal to grant an exemption was lawful; judicial review dismissed.

Citation
FOK CHUN WA AND ANOTHER v. THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant (sued by His Next Friend Fok Siu Wing): Fok Chun Wa; 2nd Applicant: Zeng Lixia; 1st Respondent: The Hospital Authority; 2nd Respondent: The Secretary for Food and Health
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2008
Case Number
HCAL94/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination and Equality, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Public Healthcare Funding, Fees and Exemptions, Family Rights
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Health Law Immigration Law Public Law Discrimination and Equality Proportionality Judicial Review +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fok Chun Wa

1st Applicant (sued by His Next Friend Fok Siu Wing)

Zeng Lixia

2nd Applicant

The Hospital Authority

1st Respondent

The Secretary for Food and Health

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Policy and Decision constitute unlawful discrimination under Basic Law arts 25 and 39 and BOR arts 1 and 22
  2. 2 Whether the Policy and Decision infringe right to social welfare (Basic Law art 36)
  3. 3 Whether the Policy and Decision infringe rights to marriage and family (Basic Law art 37; BOR art 19)

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants are materially and relevantly different from eligible Hong Kong residents; equality provisions are not engaged; even if engaged the Policy and Decision pursue legitimate aims and satisfy the justification/proportionality test; the Hospital Authority and Secretary acted within powers under the HAO; the refusal to grant an exemption was lawful; judicial review dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Order nisi: the Secretary for Food and Health and the Hospital Authority shall have costs against the applicants, to be taxed if not agreed; the applicants' own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.