LW v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

LW v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

The intervention was dismissed: the Confidential Information concerning the Panel's private deliberations is not relevant or necessary to resolve the Applicant's ground alleging failure of "due inquiry" because what was before the Panel and the reasons for its Decision and Sentence are clear from the record; disclosure of in‑camera deliberations is contrary to public interest immunity and would undermine the integrity and candidness of adjudicative processes; the intended intervener is not a proper person to be heard under Order 53 r.5B; accordingly the balance of public interests favours maintaining confidentiality and refusing intervention.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 734
Parties
Applicant: LW; Putative Respondent: The Medical Council of Hong Kong; Intended Intervener: L; Interested Party: Dr M
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL1072/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Intervention Summons (leave to Intervene) Heard; Decision on Intervention Summons
Outcome
Intervention summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Intervention, Confidentiality of Deliberations, Duty of Candour, Due Inquiry Under MRO S21, Public Interest Immunity, Reasons for Decision, Sentencing in Disciplinary Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Medical Disciplinary Law Judicial Review Evidence and Procedure Intervention Confidentiality of Deliberations Duty of Candour Due Inquiry Under MRO S21 +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LW

Applicant

The Medical Council of Hong Kong

Putative Respondent

L

Intended Intervener

Dr M

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Intervention Summons (leave to Intervene) Heard; Decision on Intervention Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a former member of a disciplinary panel may adduce evidence of the panel's private closed-door deliberations in judicial review proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the intended intervener is a "proper person" to be heard under RHC Order 53 r.5B and whether the application was made promptly
  3. 3 Whether the Confidential Information is relevant to the Applicant's ground that the Panel failed to conduct "due inquiry" under s.21 MRO

Ratio Decidendi

The intervention was dismissed: the Confidential Information concerning the Panel's private deliberations is not relevant or necessary to resolve the Applicant's ground alleging failure of "due inquiry" because what was before the Panel and the reasons for its Decision and Sentence are clear from the record; disclosure of in‑camera deliberations is contrary to public interest immunity and would undermine the integrity and candidness of adjudicative processes; the intended intervener is not a proper person to be heard under Order 53 r.5B; accordingly the balance of public interests favours maintaining confidentiality and refusing intervention.

Court Disposition

Intervention summons dismissed

Orders

  • Intervention summons dismissed
  • Confidential Information read de bene esse for the purpose of ruling but shall not be admitted or relied on in the underlying proceedings