RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR AND OTHERS

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR AND OTHERS

Leave to apply for judicial review in all three matters was refused because the challenges were hypothetical or academic, the applicants lacked sufficient interest or standing, there was undue delay and prior opportunities had existed to raise the issues, and binding authority (Leung and subsequent authorities) and the civil nature of solicitors' disciplinary proceedings rendered the proposed challenges unarguable and an abuse of process.

Citation
RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant (1st): Right To Inherent Dignity Movement Association; Applicant (2nd): Ma Pui Tung; Respondent (1st): Hong Kong SAR Government; Respondent (2nd): Legislative Council; Respondent (3rd): The Judiciary; Respondent (4th): Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2008
Case Number
HCAL123/2008
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Leave Stage — Hearing and Judgment Refusing Leave
Outcome
All three applications for leave to apply for judicial review (HCAL 104/2008, HCAL 108/2008, HCAL 123/2008) refused
Legal Topics
Standing, Hypothetical/academic Challenges, Delay and Limitation, Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Order 53 Procedure, Basic Law Interpretation, ICCPR Applicability
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Professional Discipline Standing Hypothetical/academic Challenges Delay and Limitation Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Right To Inherent Dignity Movement Association

Applicant (1st)

Ma Pui Tung

Applicant (2nd)

Hong Kong SAR Government

Respondent (1st)

Legislative Council

Respondent (2nd)

The Judiciary

Respondent (3rd)

Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong

Respondent (4th)

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Leave Stage — Hearing and Judgment Refusing Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether courts should entertain hypothetical or academic constitutional challenges
  2. 2 Whether applicants have sufficient interest/standing
  3. 3 Application of limitation/ promptness rule (O.53 r.4(1))

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review in all three matters was refused because the challenges were hypothetical or academic, the applicants lacked sufficient interest or standing, there was undue delay and prior opportunities had existed to raise the issues, and binding authority (Leung and subsequent authorities) and the civil nature of solicitors' disciplinary proceedings rendered the proposed challenges unarguable and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

All three applications for leave to apply for judicial review (HCAL 104/2008, HCAL 108/2008, HCAL 123/2008) refused

Orders

  • Leave refused in HCAL 104/2008, HCAL 108/2008 and HCAL 123/2008
  • No order as to costs