LI v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE

LI v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE

Counsel for the applicant failed to disclose a material history of related judicial review proceedings and developments and failed to seek adjournment despite high likelihood the leave application would become academic; the court had invited the DLS to attend and substantial costs were incurred as a result; these circumstances were exceptional and justify a costs order in favour of the putative respondent.

Citation
LI v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE
Parties
Applicant: Li; Putative Respondent: The Duty Lawyer Service
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2015
Case Number
HCAL76/2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application; Discontinuance and Costs Hearing
Outcome
Costs order nisi made in favour of the putative respondent
Legal Topics
Duty Lawyer Service Assignment, Legal Aid, Costs on Discontinuance, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Disclosure of Related Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration and Asylum Civil Procedure (costs) Duty Lawyer Service Assignment Legal Aid Costs on Discontinuance Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Disclosure of Related Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li

Applicant

The Duty Lawyer Service

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application; Discontinuance and Costs Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the putative respondent on discontinuance of a leave application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's counsel had a duty to disclose related proceedings and developments to the court
  3. 3 Whether the court should invite a putative respondent to attend and file evidence at the leave stage

Ratio Decidendi

Counsel for the applicant failed to disclose a material history of related judicial review proceedings and developments and failed to seek adjournment despite high likelihood the leave application would become academic; the court had invited the DLS to attend and substantial costs were incurred as a result; these circumstances were exceptional and justify a costs order in favour of the putative respondent.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi made in favour of the putative respondent

Orders

  • Costs of two counsel awarded to the putative respondent, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations