郭卓堅 v. 立法會主席梁君彥 AND ANOTHER

郭卓堅 v. 立法會主席梁君彥 AND ANOTHER

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed on the ground that the Applicant lacks the necessary locus under Order 53 rule 3(7); because the Applicant lacked standing the court did not decide the substantive questions about the scope of Rule 92 or the applicability of the non-intervention principle and dismissed the interim relief as overtaken and for lack of standing.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 919
Parties
1st Putative Respondent: President of the Legislative Council; 2nd Putative Respondent: Mr Chan Kin-por
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL918/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave and Interim Relief (inter Partes Hearing and Decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed for lack of locus; interim relief dismissed; costs awarded to the Putative Respondents.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Non Intervention Principle, Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council (rule 92 and Rule 75), Election of House Committee Chairman, Basic Law Articles 72(6) and 75
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Legislative Procedure Locus Standi Non Intervention Principle Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council (rule 92 and Rule 75) Election of House Committee Chairman +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President of the Legislative Council

1st Putative Respondent

Mr Chan Kin-por

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave and Interim Relief (inter Partes Hearing and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President had power under Rule 92 ROP to appoint a presiding member for the House Committee election
  2. 2 Whether Rule 75 of the ROP or Basic Law Articles 72(6) and 75 preclude use of Rule 92 in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the non-intervention principle bars judicial interference in the Legislative Council's internal processes

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed on the ground that the Applicant lacks the necessary locus under Order 53 rule 3(7); because the Applicant lacked standing the court did not decide the substantive questions about the scope of Rule 92 or the applicability of the non-intervention principle and dismissed the interim relief as overtaken and for lack of standing.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed for lack of locus; interim relief dismissed; costs awarded to the Putative Respondents.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • Application for interim relief dismissed