7 Dec 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant identified no question of great general or public importance and no basis was shown to invoke the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the discretionary exercise to grant leave was therefore not justified.
31 May 2012
MSAB's order that a 12‑month licence be issued operated from the date of the MSAB decision (27 February 2012); an off‑the‑record unilateral clarification by the chair not communicated with or heard against the affected parties is not binding as the board's decision; LLB must issue a transparent licence endorsed on its face exempting Condition 14 and valid for 12 months from 27 February 2012; damages for delay are not awarded absent evidence of misfeasance.
22 Dec 2009
The application for judicial review was granted and the five impugned disciplinary decisions were quashed because the disciplinary process involved material procedural unfairness and flawed factfinding (including acceptance of equivocal pleas and failure to address medical mitigation and adverse file allegations), and the Respondent no longer opposed the application.
12 Jul 2006
The Tribunal unlawfully allowed its clerk to perform substantive legal research and to participate in discussions concerning findings and orders, thereby delegating its exclusive statutory function and breaching natural justice; those defects justified quashing the tribunal's findings and orders by certiorari because no exceptional reason existed to refuse relief.
28 Jul 2004
The court held that any procedural irregularities (non-disclosure of the personal file and minute M29, absence of oral hearing) were not materially prejudicial in the circumstances, no statutory or fairness obligation required disclosure or an oral hearing here, and the Commissioner acted within his broad discretion; the compulsory retirement with deferred pension was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the judicial review application was dismissed.
5 Nov 2003
The Court held the applicant's answers were given in the course of duty, the Appropriate Tribunal applied a sufficiently high standard and properly found deliberate falsehood based on the evidence and demeanor, and although the Senior Police Officer's hearing involved procedural unfairness (insufficient time to prepare), subsequent opportunities to make representations and the appeals process cured that defect; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the disciplinary decisions upheld.
19 Dec 1996
On appeals against refusal of legal aid to challenge decisions refusing refugee status to Vietnamese asylum-seekers, procedural fairness requires the Director of Legal Aid to supply applicants' solicitors with copies of the screening documents that she proposes to rely on or has supplied to the Registrar for the purpose of the appeals; statutory entitlements under s9 of the Legal Aid Ordinance mean the Director of Immigration cannot condition supply so as to prevent such disclosure, and mandamus is appropriate to compel disclosure.