Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings

Legal area

Court

26 May 2014

NG SAI HING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

NG SAI HING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV229/2012

The Court of Appeal held the writ actions were an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle because the plaintiffs could and should have advanced the constitutional challenge to regulation 9(11) & (12) of the Police (Disciplinary) Regulations in their earlier judicial review proceedings; the public interests in finality and administrative certainty outweigh the plaintiffs' private interest in pursuing damages, so striking out the actions was justified; appeals dismissed.
26 May 2014

LEUNG FUK WAH OIL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LEUNG FUK WAH OIL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2012

The Court held that the plaintiffs' writ actions were an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle because the constitutionality of the Police (Disciplinary) Regulations could and should have been litigated in the earlier judicial review proceedings; the public interests in finality of litigation and proper administration outweigh the plaintiffs' interest in a second attempt for damages, so the strike out was upheld and the appeals dismissed.
20 Dec 2011

AU HING SIK CHARLES v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TANG KING SING CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND DISCIPLINE) AND OTHERS

Citation

AU HING SIK CHARLES v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<br>TANG KING SING CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND DISCIPLINE) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL74/2010

The Scheme in Chapter 8 is not per se incompatible with Article 10 or Lam Siu Po because it adopts fairness as the overriding test, allows for recommendations from the Adjudicating Officer and does not preclude oral hearings; however, in the applicant's individual case the 2nd and 3rd Respondents failed to consider relevant material factors (notably rank disparity, the nature of the defence alleging fabrication, and potential career impact), rendering their refusals to allow legal representation unlawful and Wednesbury unreasonable; their decisions are quashed and a mandamus is directed to th…
5 Oct 2010

WONG TAK YIU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

WONG TAK YIU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2010

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, although the challenge to the validity of Regs 9(11) and 9(12) and challenges to findings on operational efficiency were reasonably arguable, the applicant failed to demonstrate good reason for the substantial delay (over eight months before seeking legal aid and approximately 21 months overall). The period taken to obtain legal aid only partly excused delay and the cumulative facts did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to displace the finality principle; further, rehearing would be detrimental to good administration.…
16 Sept 2010

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2008

Leave to appeal was refused: the Court held Lam Siu Po controlled, the absence of an express request for legal representation did not distinguish the case given the factual history and conduct of the applicant, and where an applicant would have reasonably believed a request futile or where the facts permit inference, denial of representation can amount to deprivation of a fair hearing warranting quashing; thus no leave to appeal on the posed question was granted.
7 May 2010

LAM YAU TAK JOSEPH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM YAU TAK JOSEPH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL112/2009

The court refused both applications for extension of time because the excessive length of delay, the public policy of finality, and the real prejudice and detriment to good administration (including loss of evidence and witnesses and floodgate risk) outweigh the applicants' merits based on the Lam Siu Po decision; a change in the understanding of the law alone did not constitute a good reason to grant the extensions in these circumstances.
7 May 2010

TSUI CHUN FAI DANNY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI CHUN FAI DANNY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2009

Extension of time refused: despite a prima facie arguable case prompted by Lam Siu Po, the extremely long delay, the policy of finality, the limited weight of merits in this context and the substantial risk of prejudice to good administration (missing witnesses, destroyed records, floodgate effect and difficulty of rehearing past disciplinary cases) justified refusal of leave out of time and dismissal of the application.
18 Dec 2009

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM CHI PAN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2008

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the disciplinary outcome because the hearing was unfair under Article 10: the disciplinary regime, as applied, precluded consideration of legal representation (per Lam Siu Po), and the absence of an express request did not negate the unfairness flowing from a tribunal operating under a blanket prohibition on representation.