|
HCMP001373/1996
1996 No. MP 1373
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
HIGH COURT
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
____________
|
(1) IP TAI WAI
(2) CHEUNG KA FAI
(3) MAK YIU KAI
(4) MA WAI LUN
(5) HO WAI KEUNG
(6) LAI CHI MAN
|
Applicants |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
(2) THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
|
Respondents |
____________
Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Keith in Court
Date of Hearing: 27 June 1996
Date of Delivery of Judgment: 27 June 1996
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. This application for leave to apply for judicial review was first placed before me shortly after it had been filed in court on 25th April. I was not prepared to grant leave, and my reasons were set out in a letter dated 30th April written on my instructions by my clerk to the Applicants' solicitors. However, I did not formally refuse leave because the Applicants had asked for an oral hearing of the application for leave if I had been minded to refuse leave.
2. A further affirmation was then filed in support of the application. I was still not prepared to grant leave, and my reasons were set out in a letter dated 16th May written on my instructions by my clerk to the Applicants' solicitors. In essence, there was still no proper explanation for the delay. I had noticed that paras. 8 and 9 of the 1st affirmation of Lai Wing Fai had explained why the Notice of Application had not been filed between 14th February and 18th April. But there was no explanation as to why the Notice of Application had not been filed between the date when the letter of 27th December 1995 would have been received and 14th February. However, as before, I did not formally refuse leave. I directed that if the Applicants wished to proceed with the application for leave, the application should be heard on a date to be fixed. That is the application before me today.
3. The Applicants have now applied, pursuant to Ord. 53 r. 3(6), to amend the Notice of Application so as to make it consistent with the evidence on which they seek to rely, and to identify more accurately the decisions which they wish to challenge. I allow the Notice of Application to be amended in the form sought by the Applicants.
4. The Applicants have now dealt with the problem raised in the letter of 16th May by filing an affirmation from Foo Tak Ching. That affirmation plugs the gap in the evidence. It tells me for the first time that the institution of disciplinary proceedings on 14th February did not come as a complete surprise. Mr. Foo had been expecting something of the kind ever since early in January. I just wish that that information had been included in one or other of Mr. Lai's earlier affirmations. I also wish that the letter of 10th July to the Applicants' solicitors had been exhibited to Mr. Lai's 1st affirmation, because then the problem which originally arose as to the true nature and date of the decisions being attacked simply would not have arisen.
5. In these circumstances, I give the Applicants leave to apply for judicial review of decisions (1) and (3) of the decisions set out on page 3 of the Amended Notice of Application. I do not give them leave in relation to decision (2), because in my judgment it is quite plain that the decision referred to in the letter of 6th September 1995 was not a new decision, but the decision made prior to 20th June 1995, i.e. decision (1).
(Brian Keith)
Judge of the High Court
Representation:
Mr. Gerard McCoy and Mr. Victor Luk, instructed by Messrs. T.C. Foo & Co., for the Applicants
|