Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detriment to good administration

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2016

WONG YUK KWAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

WONG YUK KWAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL71/2015

The application for leave was dismissed for undue delay and because granting leave would be detrimental to good administration; the applicant gave no adequate explanation for the 16‑month delay and could raise the issues at trial or on appeal; furthermore, the HKEx deeming power under the Listing Rules does not create a criminal offence and Article 12(1) was not engaged, so there was no arguable constitutional issue warranting extension of time.
3 Nov 2015

AW v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

AW v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/2015

The Court of Appeal applied the multi-factorial test in Re Thomas Lai and held there is no special categorical rule favouring extension of time in CAT/humanitarian cases; the applicant's delay was undue and unjustified, the Unified Screening Mechanism provided an adequate alternative for fresh assessment making the proposed judicial review otiose, and granting extension would be detrimental to good administration; appeal dismissed and extension refused.
14 Sept 2015

SA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL77/2015

Extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant showed inordinate delay (22 months) without good reason and the claim was premature and detrimental to good administration given ongoing USM screening by the primary decisionmaker; accordingly the court refused to consider the merits.
26 Jan 2015

AW v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS

Citation

AW v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL91/2013

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to act promptly and the stated reasons for delay were insufficient (legal aid delay and personal file not decisive), recent authorities did not justify delay, the USM/CIDTP process would address the substantive risk of ill-treatment making judicial review of the CAT decision purposeless, and granting leave would be detrimental to good administration; accordingly application for leave dismissed.
11 May 2010

WONG CHI KEUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

WONG CHI KEUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1/2010

The court refused extensions of time for all three applications because the applicants did not demonstrate good reason for the long delays (5–8 years); change in the law (Lam Siu Po) and late legal aid grants did not amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to extend time, and even if good reason existed the court would refuse relief because granting it would be detrimental to good administration given evidence of lost or incomplete records, witness unavailability, resource burdens and risk of a floodgate of reopened disciplinary cases.
11 May 2010

WONG CHI MING v. THE FORCE DISCIPLINE OFFICER OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE

Citation

WONG CHI MING v. THE FORCE DISCIPLINE OFFICER OF THE HONG KONG POLICE FORCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL21/2010

The court refused to extend time: inability to obtain legal aid in these cases was, in substance, tied to a later change in the law (Lam Siu Po) and is not by itself a sufficient basis for extension absent exceptional circumstances; moreover the Assistant Commissioner’s evidence established that reopening the long‑finalised disciplinary decisions would be detrimental to good administration (missing records, witness availability, resource burden), so even if good reason existed the court would refuse to grant extension and leave; accordingly applications for leave dismissed.
11 May 2010

MAK KIN WING v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

MAK KIN WING v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL20/2010

The court refused extensions of time and dismissed the leave applications because the applicants did not establish good reason for the prolonged delays (5–8 years) beyond reliance on Lam Siu Po and legal aid issues, and because granting leave and substantive relief would be detrimental to good administration given incomplete records, unavailable witnesses, operational difficulties and prejudice to the Police Force.
9 Jun 2004

LAM YUET MEI v. EDUCATION AND MANPOWER BUREAU

Citation

LAM YUET MEI v. EDUCATION AND MANPOWER BUREAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL36/2004

The summons to set aside the ex parte leave was dismissed because it was not a plain and obvious case to do so; there were good reasons to extend time given evidentiary uncertainty about when the 2002 decision was communicated and the decision's continuing effects, therefore the applicant was granted an extension of time to apply for judicial review and directions for further evidence were given.