Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal aid appeals

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2024

LI HAO TIAN v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR LAI c/o DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL892/2024

The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any public law ground that was reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success: the Deputy Registrar lawfully adopted the Director's Reasons for Refusal which sufficiently addressed means issues, the means test failure made merits consideration unnecessary, and there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the decision-making process.
29 Aug 2024

鄭惠芬對法律援助署（法援署）署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2033
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL643/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the impugned decision was a routine procedural case‑management decision about handling related legal aid appeals by the same hearing officer, there were no special circumstances showing substantial or irreparable harm, the appeals had been heard making the challenge moot, and alleged unfairness or unreasonableness could be addressed at the hearing rather than by permission stage judicial review.
1 Jun 2007

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/1999

On the evidence the applicant likely made an oral claim for right of abode at the reception counter; the Director has no record of any claim; the absence of a record was not caused by oppressive conduct or intimidation by any person in authority and no estoppel arises to prevent the Director denying a record.
17 Jul 1996

VAN CAN ON AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

Citation

VAN CAN ON AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2037/1996

The Director of Immigration is not obliged to consider the merits of an application or appeal for legal aid or to second‑guess the Registrar when deciding whether to exercise his power under s.13E(1) to order removal; the Director's policy of not treating the lodging of such an application or appeal as a reason for postponing removal is not irrational, and accordingly the court will not exercise its discretion to grant a stay for the 9 new applicants.

Hong Kong Case Law

LI HAO TIAN v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR LAI c/o DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

鄭惠芬 對 法律援助署（法援署）署長

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

VAN CAN ON AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

鄭惠芬對法律援助署（法援署）署長