27 Sept 2023
The Summons was dismissed because the court found the appointment of amicus unnecessary as the issues are not complicated, translation unnecessary because the hearing judge is bilingual, and joinder of the third party premature before leave is granted.
22 Aug 2023
No reasonable apprehension of bias existed because listing by the list judge is not evidence of pre-commitment, the earlier dismissal (HCAL1264) does not preclude an open mind on new applications, and there was no justification to appoint an Amicus Curiae or to reassign or re-fix the hearings; the summons was therefore dismissed.
22 Aug 2023
There was no reasonable apprehension of bias; the fact the same judge previously dismissed HCAL1264/2022 for lack of reasonably arguable grounds does not preclude him bringing an open mind to fresh applications; case management to hear the four applications together and to refuse appointment of an Amicus Curiae was appropriate. The summons is dismissed.
22 Aug 2023
The summons for change of presiding judges and appointment of an Amicus Curiae was dismissed because the objective test for apparent bias was not met: the fact the judge previously decided HCAL1264 against the applicant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, the prior decision was not determinative of the new applications, each application must be considered on its own merits, and there was no need for an Amicus; hearing four leave applications in one day was a legitimate case management decision.
22 Aug 2023
The summons seeking change of presiding judge, appointment of an Amicus Curiae and re‑fixing of hearings is dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias or any necessity for an Amicus; the prior decision (HCAL 1264/2022) does not preclude the judge from bringing an open mind to the four applications; and hearing the four leave applications on a single day is a proper case management decision.
19 Mar 2020
The court refused the applicant's ex parte application for pre‑clearance declarations. It held that the 1st/2nd declarations as framed necessarily involved declarations of non‑criminality and that civil courts should make such declarations only in very or truly exceptional circumstances after a fact‑sensitive inquiry into the totality of the facts and a balancing of competing public policies (access to justice vs. risk of corrupting public justice). Qualified civil‑only declarations would be impractical and meaningless in Hong Kong where maintenance and champerty remain crimes and torts. The…
12 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and there were no other interests of justice warranting a hearing: the facts and law were clear, the claim was plainly inconsistent with Basic Law Article 85, there was no arguable basis to join the Judiciary or to appoint an amicus, and the trial judge's case management decisions were proper, so permission to appeal was denied and no order as to costs was made.
17 Aug 2009
Refusal of the amicus application was required because the Centre lacked clear legal personality and a specific interest or statutory function warranting amicus status, the parties were already adequately represented by experienced counsel, and academic research alone does not justify invitation of an amicus absent necessity.
28 Apr 2006
The Court varied the order nisi and held that there should be no order as to costs for the prospective overruling hearing because it would be inappropriate to penalise the Respondent with the costs of an amicus appointed by the Court; appellants' costs for that hearing remain to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations; and there should be no order as to costs for the Respondent's application to vary.
24 Mar 2006
Leave was granted for the Equal Opportunities Commission to provide the services of counsel as amicus curiae because the court concluded that impartial assistance from the EOC could beneficially assist determination of issues with potential far‑reaching implications, there was precedent for such an order, no opposition from the parties, and the EOC preferred not to intervene; the court directed that costs of the application be in the cause and that the EOC be neither entitled to nor liable for costs.