Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Refusal of legal aid

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2021

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/2020

The Court held that CACV 115/2020 was incompetent because no statutory leave under s63(1) District Court Ordinance had been obtained, Ms Leung had no locus in DCCJ 4497/2017, her multiple notices and summonses were frivolous and vexatious and therefore liable to be struck out or dismissed, and that CAMPs 124, 170 and 178/2020 lacked merit and are dismissed; the Court granted an interim restriction preventing Ms Leung from filing Court of Appeal proceedings or applications arising from matters involving Mr Leung pending determination of an RPO/RAO and permitted the Secretary for Justice to ins…
16 Sept 2020

TAMANG SAMJHANA v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1025/2018

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory Form 86 requirement to state relief and grounds (Order 53 r3(2)(a)(iii)), failed to name the correct decision-maker, failed to show an arguable case of illegality, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, and the available statutory appeal remedy had been exercised, compounded by unjustified delay.
27 Jun 2018

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL417/2018

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant had an adequate appeal remedy, the Director reasonably concluded the proposed PDPO s.66 claim was unmeritorious (a conclusion reinforced by the District Court striking out the action as an abuse of process), the likely quantum fell within the Small Claims Tribunal so legal aid would not be available, and there was no useful purpose in granting leave given the action had ended.
20 Dec 2002

CHAN WAN v. HONG KONG TRAMWAYS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN WAN v. HONG KONG TRAMWAYS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6776/2000

At strike out stage the court found it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff had no arguable case against the tramway company because unresolved factual issues (notably the duration she sat on the rear door and whether the driver could and ought to have seen and stopped) made refusal of legal aid potentially premature; accordingly the master’s order striking out the parts relating to the 2nd Defendant was set aside and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend and pursue those allegations further.
3 Jun 1999

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAA20/1999

The court held that the appeal was properly constituted despite unsigned forms because the solicitors acted as duly authorised agents; the Director of Legal Aid is entitled and obliged to assess the strength or weakness of the applicant's case when deciding legal aid. However, where the Director places documents before the court bearing on that assessment, procedural fairness requires that relevant documents be disclosed to the appellant's solicitors (subject to data protection analysis). Applying Van Can On, the judge directed that copies of the documents in the Legal Aid Department file rel…
29 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. WONG MAN TAT

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG MAN TAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC635/1997

The court held that the applicant's new allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, raised for the first time at the hearing, could not be allowed as amendments to the Notice of Appeal at this late stage, and the court would not order legal aid; the appeal must proceed on the original Notice of Appeal and grounds.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

TAMANG SAMJHANA v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

CHAN WAN v. HONG KONG TRAMWAYS LTD. AND OTHERS

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

HKSAR v. WONG MAN TAT