FUNG MAN CHEE MAGGIE AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS LTD

FUNG MAN CHEE MAGGIE AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS LTD

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Applicants met the threshold of reasonable arguability with a realistic prospect of success; there was prima facie relevance of the documents referred to on the issue of bias and other grounds, and it was appropriate to split the rolled-up hearing so leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2810
Parties
1st Applicant: FUNG MAN CHEE MAGGIE; 2nd Applicant: LANDOLT CHEUNG MAN YAN; Respondent (putative Respondent): HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL279/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Granted; Substantive Hearing and Directions to Follow
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; rolled-up hearing split; substantive issues and directions to follow
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Mistake of Fact, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Alternative Remedies, Duty of Candour, Accreditation and Professional Registration
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Education Regulation Apparent Bias Mistake of Fact Wednesbury Unreasonableness Alternative Remedies +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FUNG MAN CHEE MAGGIE

1st Applicant

LANDOLT CHEUNG MAN YAN

2nd Applicant

HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS LIMITED

Respondent (putative Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Granted; Substantive Hearing and Directions to Follow

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Putative Respondent exhibited apparent bias in formulating membership and education requirements
  2. 2 Whether the Putative Respondent made material mistakes of fact (including failure to verify whether the Programme was full-time or part-time)
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of CityU SCOPE Doctor of Psychology holders is Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Applicants met the threshold of reasonable arguability with a realistic prospect of success; there was prima facie relevance of the documents referred to on the issue of bias and other grounds, and it was appropriate to split the rolled-up hearing so leave can be determined and, if granted, disclosure and substantive issues can be addressed at a later hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review granted; rolled-up hearing split; substantive issues and directions to follow

Orders

  • Leave granted to the 1st and 2nd Applicants to apply for judicial review
  • Rolled-up hearing split; leave to be dealt with first and substantive hearing to be scheduled