ROBERT JOHN WALSH v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

ROBERT JOHN WALSH v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Because the respondents conceded the relief sought by the applicant and failed to show any reason to depart from the ordinary rule on costs (including no satisfactory evidence that delay in legal aid caused the vacation), the order nisi for costs stands and the respondents must pay the applicant's costs of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ROBERT JOHN WALSH v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Robert John Walsh; First Respondent: Secretary for Security; Second Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 1997
Case Number
HCMP36/1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Costs Summons Following Grant of Judicial Review and Quashing of Deportation Order
Outcome
Order nisi for costs confirmed; respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs of the judicial review as taxed if not agreed; prior order quashing deportation order maintained.
Legal Topics
Deportation Order, Judicial Review, Costs, Stay of Deportation, Amendment and Evidence
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Deportation Order Judicial Review Costs Stay of Deportation Amendment and Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Walsh

Applicant

Secretary for Security

First Respondent

Director of Immigration

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Costs Summons Following Grant of Judicial Review and Quashing of Deportation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant entitled to costs of consent stay application and vacated hearing
  2. 2 Whether respondents should bear costs thrown away by vacation alleged to be caused by applicant's legal aid application
  3. 3 Whether applicant should bear costs of application to amend and to adduce further evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents conceded the relief sought by the applicant and failed to show any reason to depart from the ordinary rule on costs (including no satisfactory evidence that delay in legal aid caused the vacation), the order nisi for costs stands and the respondents must pay the applicant's costs of the judicial review; the costs of amendment and additional evidence were justified by material served by respondents and do not alter that outcome.

Court Disposition

Order nisi for costs confirmed; respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs of the judicial review as taxed if not agreed; prior order quashing deportation order maintained.

Orders

  • Order quashing the deportation order (previously handed down 24 July 1997)
  • Respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the judicial review as taxed if not agreed