LEUNG HON WAI v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ANOTHER

LEUNG HON WAI v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ANOTHER

Majority of grounds (1-5) did not raise points of law of general public importance and costs should follow the event; Grounds 6-7 did raise an issue of general public importance concerning the Director's role in the EIA process and thus fell within the public interest litigation exception; to reflect both positions the applicant was ordered to pay two‑thirds of the costs of the judicial review; the respondents' application for the costs of the leave application was refused because the applicant had been successful at the leave stage and no exceptional circumstances justified taxing those leave costs against him; overall no order as to costs as between the two applications and applicant's...

Citation
LEUNG HON WAI v. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Respondent: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; 2nd Respondent: TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2013
Case Number
HCAL49/2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Applications Following Dismissal and Costs Order Nisi
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs of the judicial review; respondents' summons for costs of the leave application refused; overall no order as to costs for the two applications; applicant's costs to be taxed under legal aid regulations with certificate for two counsel.
Legal Topics
Public Interest Litigation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Costs Orders, Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Process
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Judicial Review Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Public Interest Litigation Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Costs Orders +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1st Respondent

TOWN PLANNING BOARD

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Applications Following Dismissal and Costs Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant qualifies for immunity from costs as a public interest litigant
  2. 2 Whether Grounds 6-7 raise a point of law of general public importance under the EIAO concerning the Director's role
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to the costs of the leave application

Ratio Decidendi

Majority of grounds (1-5) did not raise points of law of general public importance and costs should follow the event; Grounds 6-7 did raise an issue of general public importance concerning the Director's role in the EIA process and thus fell within the public interest litigation exception; to reflect both positions the applicant was ordered to pay two‑thirds of the costs of the judicial review; the respondents' application for the costs of the leave application was refused because the applicant had been successful at the leave stage and no exceptional circumstances justified taxing those leave costs against him; overall no order as to costs as between the two applications and applicant's...

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs of the judicial review; respondents' summons for costs of the leave application refused; overall no order as to costs for the two applications; applicant's costs to be taxed under legal aid regulations with certificate for two counsel.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay two-thirds of the costs of the judicial review application.
  • Respondents' summons to vary the costs order nisi to include costs of the leave application is refused.