AIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG FEDERATION OF INSURERS AND ANOTHER

HCAL 163/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 163 OF 2015

___________________

___________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to (i) a decision of the Appeals Tribunal of the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers (the 1^st respondent), on 15 May 2015, the written reasons for which were given on 22 July 2015, to dismiss an appeal by AIA International Ltd (the applicant), against the decision of the Insurance Agents Registration Board (the 2^nd respondent), on 22 February 2014, to require the applicant to pay the total sum of $806,200 to two complainants against the applicant’s former agent made at an insurance agents disciplinary hearing in respect of the agent, and (ii) a decision of the 2^nd respondent to make the payment order against the applicant on 22 February 2014.

2.  The applicant brought this application on 14 August 2015. 

3.  The heart of the issue in these judicial review proceedings is whether the 2^nd respondent had power to make the payment order, and if it did, whether the 2^nd respondent correctly made the order and the 1^st respondent correctly upheld the order in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 

4.  Leave is granted in accordance with the grounds that are set out in the leave notice which I am satisfied are reasonably arguable.  The two complainants against the agent whom the 1^st respondent were required to compensate under the payment order are interested parties.  

5.  The reasons why I find the grounds reasonably arguable is because there are questions as to whether the payment order against the applicant made by the 2^nd respondent is within its statutory powers when taking disciplinary action against an insurance agent, and whether the payment order against the applicant made by the 2^nd respondent was correctly upheld in light of the alleged failures by the 2^nd respondent to give the applicant an opportunity to make submissions or adduce evidence in relation to the payment order or to give adequate or any reasons for the payment order, and the legal issue that the agent was acting within apparent authority from the applicant.