|
HCAL1413/2018
[2018] HKCFI 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
No. 1413 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Wilmes Franz Josef |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Coroner, West Kowloon Court |
Putative Respondent |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by The Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Chan:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review is refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. Leave is refused because the proposed grounds of the judicial review are not reasonably arguable.
2. The court in judicial review performs a supervisory role which looks only at the legality and not the merit of the challenged decision.
3. Legality in the context of judicial review means whether, in the challenged decision, any error of law or material procedural irregularity had been committed by the lower tribunal or if it acted Wednesbury unreasonably.
4. In the present case, a reportable death (uncertain cause of death) had been made to the Coroner. Both the attending physician and the pathologist at Queen Mary Hospital had not been able to provide a cause of death.
5. The applicant (the deceased’s husband) was also of the view that the apparent cause of death, as presently appeared on the reportable death form, was incorrectly stated.
6. Further, the applicant also raised concerns and / or dissatisfaction regarding treatments (or lack of them) the deceased received during her stay at Queen Mary Hospital.
7. The Coroners Ordinance empowers the Coroner to investigate into a reportable death. Given the circumstances of this case, it is incumbent upon the Coroner to investigate into the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death.
8. Having examined all the documents and the transcripts of the hearing at the Coroner’s Court, I am of the view that the Coroner had acted in accordance with the law and followed the statutory procedure as prescribed. He had not committed any error of law, procedural irregularity and / or acted unreasonably.
Dated the 31st day of August 2018.
|
(Carmen Ma)
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must: |
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). |
|
Sent/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 31st August 2018
Wilmes Franz Josef
The Applicant, in person
196 Sai Keng Village, 1.F,
Sai Kung, New Territories |
|
Sent/Handed to the Putative Respondent/the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 31st August 2018
Department of Justice
for the Putative Respondent
Ref: MIS 476/18
6th floor, Main Wing, Justice Place, 18 Lower Albert Road, Central, Hong Kong |
Form CALL-1
|