WONG YUK MAN v. NG LEUNG SING AND ANOTHER

WONG YUK MAN v. NG LEUNG SING AND ANOTHER

Extension of time refused because the delay was substantial and inexcusable, which invoked the higher threshold requiring a real prospect of success; the applicant's grounds failed that threshold because the non-intervention principle applies to the FC chairman and s23 LCPPO does not negate that principle; therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG YUK MAN v. NG LEUNG SING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: WONG YUK MAN; 1st Putative Respondent: NG LEUNG SING; 2nd Putative Respondent: TOMMY CHEUNG YU YAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Case Number
HCMP3217/2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Summons Heard on Papers
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for extension of time to appeal refused; costs awarded to putative respondents
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Non Intervention Principle, Legislative Privilege, Extension of Time to Appeal, Costs
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Legislative Procedure Separation of Powers Non Intervention Principle Legislative Privilege +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG YUK MAN

Applicant

NG LEUNG SING

1st Putative Respondent

TOMMY CHEUNG YU YAN

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Summons Heard on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted for an appeal from refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the non-intervention principle applies to the chairman of the Finance Committee (FC) of LegCo
  3. 3 Whether Section 23 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap 382) abrogates the common law non-intervention principle

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the delay was substantial and inexcusable, which invoked the higher threshold requiring a real prospect of success; the applicant's grounds failed that threshold because the non-intervention principle applies to the FC chairman and s23 LCPPO does not negate that principle; therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect and the summons was dismissed with costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for extension of time to appeal refused; costs awarded to putative respondents

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Summons of 3 December 2015 dismissed