KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked a sufficient interest to bring the challenge on the existing factual record, the proposed challenge was premature and not reasonably arguable in light of the ongoing Commission of Inquiry which provides an effective alternative forum for fact‑finding and recommendations, and the application was academic in part and based on an unclear factual foundation; amendment and adjournment requests were refused.

Citation
KWOK CHEUK KIN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Putative Respondent: Secretary for Transport and Housing; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Water Supplies (Water Authority); 3rd Putative Respondent: The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 January 2016
Case Number
HCAL136/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Hearing and Decision (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Standing, Alternative Remedy, Judicial Review Leave, Statutory Interpretation (s15 Waterworks Ordinance), Commission of Inquiry, Prematurity and Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Public Health Housing Regulation Water Regulation Public Inquiry Law Standing Alternative Remedy Judicial Review Leave +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Transport and Housing

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Water Supplies (Water Authority)

2nd Putative Respondent

The Hong Kong Housing Authority

3rd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Hearing and Decision (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has sufficient interest (standing) to bring judicial review
  2. 2 Whether there is an alternative effective remedy (ongoing Commission of Inquiry)
  3. 3 Whether the proposed challenge is reasonably arguable or is academic/premature

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked a sufficient interest to bring the challenge on the existing factual record, the proposed challenge was premature and not reasonably arguable in light of the ongoing Commission of Inquiry which provides an effective alternative forum for fact‑finding and recommendations, and the application was academic in part and based on an unclear factual foundation; amendment and adjournment requests were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application to adjourn leave hearing to 42 days after Commission report refused.