U STORAGE GROUP LTD v. DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

U STORAGE GROUP LTD v. DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

The court granted leave in part: it held that paragraphs of Wong 3rd and Hoi 2nd which respond to amendments in the Amended Form 86 fell within the consent order and required no further leave, and that the Putative Respondent could adduce specific Further Evidence (Wong 3rd 13–14 and Hoi 2nd 22–25, 28–30) because those paragraphs were factual, responsive to new factual matters first raised in the Applicant's reply, relevant to the justificatory and proportionality issues under Ground 5A, and their admission would not cause unfair prejudice given the Order 53 regime

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 711
Parties
Applicant: U STORAGE GROUP LIMITED; Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF BUILDINGS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL490/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional Challenge) / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence; Reasons for Decision Delivered
Outcome
Leave granted in part; no leave required for certain paragraphs; costs reserved (order nisi)
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, Proportionality and Justification, Fire Safety Regulation, Building Codes and Administrative Policy
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Proportionality and Justification Fire Safety Regulation Building Codes and Administrative Policy

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U STORAGE GROUP LIMITED

Applicant

DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF BUILDINGS

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional Challenge) / Interlocutory Summons for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence; Reasons for Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave is required for additional evidence filed by putative respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Further Evidence is relevant to the proportionality and justification analysis under the constitutional challenge (Ground 5A)
  3. 3 Whether specified paragraphs fall within the scope of the consent order and thus require no leave

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted leave in part: it held that paragraphs of Wong 3rd and Hoi 2nd which respond to amendments in the Amended Form 86 fell within the consent order and required no further leave, and that the Putative Respondent could adduce specific Further Evidence (Wong 3rd 13–14 and Hoi 2nd 22–25, 28–30) because those paragraphs were factual, responsive to new factual matters first raised in the Applicant's reply, relevant to the justificatory and proportionality issues under Ground 5A, and their admission would not cause unfair prejudice given the Order 53 regime

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part; no leave required for certain paragraphs; costs reserved (order nisi)

Orders

  • Leave granted to the Putative Respondent to adduce and rely on Wong 3rd paragraphs 13 and 14 and Hoi 2nd paragraphs 22 to 25 and 28 to 30
  • For avoidance of doubt, no leave required for Putative Respondent to rely on Wong 3rd paragraphs 6 to 12 and Hoi 2nd paragraphs 5 to 21 as covered by paragraph 2 of the Consent Order dated 6 April 2020