郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人

[2018] HKCFI 155 · HCAL 644/2017

Court of First Instance25 January 2018

HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人 HCAL644/2017 郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人

HCAL644/2017

[2018] HKCFI 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 644 of 2017

BETWEEN
	郭卓堅	Applicant
	and
	法援署署長鄺寶昌	1^st Putative Respondent
	法援署高級律師劉嘉駿	2^nd Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant or counsel [ ] in open court;

Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Chow dated 24 January 2018:

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed on the ground the application is not reasonably arguable. The Applicant has failed to identify, in the Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review dated 20 September 2017 (Form 86), any specific decision made by or on behalf of the Director of Legal Aid in respect of which relief is sought, or any relief which the court can properly grant in an application for judicial review. The Form 86 has also failed to identify any grounds on which relief is ought. To the extent that the Applicant is seeking to challenge the Director of Legal Aid’s decision not to grant him legal aid in relation to HCAL 453/2017 referred to in his affirmation dated 20 September 2017, such challenge should be brought by way of an appeal instead of by an application for judicial review.

Dated the 25^th day of January 2018.

(Clara Ng)
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);	Sent/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 25/01/2018 郭卓堅 The Applicant	Sent/Handed to the Respondent/ the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on 25/01/2018 法援署署長鄺寶昌 The 1^st Putative Respondent 法援署高級律師劉嘉駿 The 2^nd Putative Respondent
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)).

郭卓堅 v. 法援署署長鄺寶昌及另一人

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition