23 Nov 2022
The Ombudsman correctly construed s.8 and Schedule 2(5)(b): because the Education Bureau exercises powers to determine pay rates for supply teachers, complaints about those pay matters fall within Schedule 2 and are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction; accordingly the applicant's ground of review is not reasonably arguable and the leave application is dismissed.
4 Oct 2010
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable case that the Director of Housing, the Ombudsman or the Commissioner of Police acted unlawfully, irrationally or in dereliction of duty, failed to particularise allegations of bad faith or bias, and the application was substantially out of time with no good reason to extend the statutory three‑month limitation.
13 Feb 2009
Leave refused because none of the proposed grounds had an arguable prospect of success: the Ombudsman had agreed to a full investigation including review of ITC's engagement of HKPC (ground 1 moot), any challenge to reasons was premature prior to a final report (ground 2), and the refusal to reimburse solicitors' fees was lawful and within statutory discretion and immunity under the Ombudsman Ordinance (ground 3).
17 Oct 1997
The Commissioner lacks power to investigate complaints that are solely about the exercise of clinical judgment by medical practitioners because such clinical decisions do not, in ordinary cases, fall within the administrative functions of the Department of Health or the Hospital Authority; on the facts there was no material suggesting managerial or operational causes, and it was open to the Commissioner to conclude his investigatory powers were not engaged.