ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING CHUEN

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING CHUEN

The High Court held the Director is entitled to retain the $2,162 as a first charge under the certificate and the Legal Aid Ordinance because a nil maximum contribution does not prevent a charge arising for the deficiency between the Director's net liability and amounts recovered; accordingly the adjudicator's contrary construction was incorrect and the appeal is allowed to that extent.

Citation
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEE CHING CHUEN
Parties
Applicant/defendant: The Attorney General; Respondent/claimant: Lee Ching Chuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 1983
Case Number
HCSA6/1983
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Director entitled to retain $2,162; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Construction of Statute, Charge on Recovered Property, Legal Aid Contributions, Deduction From Damages, Set Off
Source Language
EN
Legal Aid Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Costs Property Construction of Statute Charge on Recovered Property Legal Aid Contributions +2 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Applicant/defendant

Lee Ching Chuen

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director may retain deductions from proceeds recovered where the legal aid certificate specifies a maximum contribution of nil
  2. 2 Construction and application of Legal Aid Ordinance Cap.91 s.18(2) and amended ss.18A and 19A
  3. 3 Whether a charge arises against a certificate holder with a nil maximum contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Director is entitled to retain the $2,162 as a first charge under the certificate and the Legal Aid Ordinance because a nil maximum contribution does not prevent a charge arising for the deficiency between the Director's net liability and amounts recovered; accordingly the adjudicator's contrary construction was incorrect and the appeal is allowed to that extent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Director entitled to retain $2,162; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to the extent of $2,162 retained by the Director
  • No order as to costs