A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER

A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER

Extension of time to appeal was refused because, on the evidence and on consideration of fresh evidence de bene esse, the AAB's findings that Pathfinders was not a data user and that M acted in her personal capacity were legitimately open and not unreasonable or irrational; the intended appeal is hopeless and lacks reasonable prospects of success, and the fresh evidence would not be admitted under Ladd v Marshall.

Citation
A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: A; 1st Putative Respondent: Administrative Appeals Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2017
Case Number
HCMP985/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Determination on Extension Application (hcmp 985/2017)
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Vicarious Liability, Data Protection Principles DPP3 and DPP4
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Data Protection Civil Procedure Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Admission of Fresh Evidence Vicarious Liability +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

Administrative Appeals Board

1st Putative Respondent

Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Determination on Extension Application (hcmp 985/2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether Pathfinders was a data user and vicariously liable for M's disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal was refused because, on the evidence and on consideration of fresh evidence de bene esse, the AAB's findings that Pathfinders was not a data user and that M acted in her personal capacity were legitimately open and not unreasonable or irrational; the intended appeal is hopeless and lacks reasonable prospects of success, and the fresh evidence would not be admitted under Ladd v Marshall.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to appeal against the Decision of Zervos J dated 7 April 2017
  • Dismiss the summons HCMP 985/2017