LEE SZE LUNG v. SOLICITOR GENERAL [Decision on Leave Application]

LEE SZE LUNG v. SOLICITOR GENERAL [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the pleaded grounds were not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success: the trial judge's omission was a considered judicial decision amounting at most to ordinary error, not a serious default, and the Solicitor General's refusal to award ex gratia compensation was not Wednesbury unreasonable under the 2014 LC Paper.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 149
Parties
Applicant: Lee Sze Lung; Putative Respondent: Solicitor General
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 2020
Case Number
HCAL170/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Compensation for Wrongful Conviction, Ex Gratia Scheme, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Ex Gratia Scheme Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Parties

Lee Sze Lung

Applicant

Solicitor General

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (consideration of Documents and Oral Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Solicitor General misinterpreted "serious default" in the 2014 LC Paper
  2. 2 Whether the Solicitor General misinterpreted "outstandingly deserving cases" in the 2014 LC Paper
  3. 3 Whether the Solicitor General acted Wednesbury unreasonably in refusing compensation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the pleaded grounds were not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success: the trial judge's omission was a considered judicial decision amounting at most to ordinary error, not a serious default, and the Solicitor General's refusal to award ex gratia compensation was not Wednesbury unreasonable under the 2014 LC Paper.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant to pay costs of the Putative Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed