MIC v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE

MIC v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE

On an objective reading of contemporaneous documents and correspondence the administrator had considered both the pre‑existing solicitor‑client relationship and the Performance Reason (that Daly was overburdened and could not handle further assignments personally and efficiently); the Performance Reason was not a mere post‑hoc justification but part of the stated reasons; consequently Grounds 1 and 2 were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

Citation
MIC v. THE DUTY LAWYER SERVICE
Parties
Applicant: MST; Applicant: SR; Applicant: MIC; Putative Respondent: The Duty Lawyer Service
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Case Number
HCAL63/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave Applications for Judicial Review / Consolidated Leave Hearing (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused for HCAL 6, 7 and 63 of 2013; leave based on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Counsel, Duty Lawyer Service Policy, Convention Against Torture Claims, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Irrationality Vs Proportionality, Post‑hoc Reasons in Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Assignment of Counsel Duty Lawyer Service Policy Convention Against Torture Claims Judicial Review Leave +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MST

Applicant

SR

Applicant

MIC

Applicant

The Duty Lawyer Service

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave Applications for Judicial Review / Consolidated Leave Hearing (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Duty Lawyer Service fettered its discretion by rigidly applying an even‑distribution policy
  2. 2 Whether the administrator failed to give sufficient weight to pre‑existing solicitor‑client relationships when refusing nominated counsel
  3. 3 Whether reasons advanced in affidavit evidence are admissible or constitute impermissible post‑hoc justification

Ratio Decidendi

On an objective reading of contemporaneous documents and correspondence the administrator had considered both the pre‑existing solicitor‑client relationship and the Performance Reason (that Daly was overburdened and could not handle further assignments personally and efficiently); the Performance Reason was not a mere post‑hoc justification but part of the stated reasons; consequently Grounds 1 and 2 were not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused for HCAL 6, 7 and 63 of 2013; leave based on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave refused for the consolidated leave applications.
  • No order as to costs (order nisi).