LIMBU TIKARAM v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

HCAL 112/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 112 OF 1999

____________

_______________

R U L I N G

_______________

1. This is the ruling on the Applicant's application for leave to amend his Grounds of Application by adding 3 further grounds; that is, proposed Grounds (K) to (M).

2. The Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review in September 1999. Leave was given by me for him to do so on 19 October 1999. The Applicant was acting in person up to that time. He was legally represented thereafter.

3. Mr Marshall for the 2nd Respondent complains that this application for leave to amend is only made at a late stage, that is, at the beginning of the substantive hearing itself. In response, Mr Kwok for the Applicant points out that there is a good reason for such an apparent delay. He submits that the proposed grounds, especially Ground (K), were only known to the Applicant and his legal advisers after the transcript of the hearing before the Registration of Persons Tribunal became available to them. That did not happen until last Friday, 2 June 2000. There is argument between the parties as to which of them should ensure that the transcript of the hearing should be made available at an early stage. I do not regard it necessary to decide on that point because having looked at the circumstances of this case, I do not consider the late availability of the transcript must necessarily have been caused by the Applicant's fault or delay. For this reason, I do not find the lateness of the application to be a factor against the Applicant.

4. The second ground of objection raised by Mr Marshall is that it has not been shown how the proposed Ground (K) has to do with the availability of the transcript of hearing. Mr Kwok argues that in view of the observations of Seagroatt J in Unaj Limbu v. the Commissioner for Registration, AL 136/1999 and what appeared to have transpired in the hearing before the Tribunal in the present case (especially at p.26 of the transcript), there is an arguable case regarding the allegation of unfairness raised in Ground (K). Having heard the parties, I agree with Mr Kwok's argument.

5. For the above reasons, I consider my discretion should be exercised in granting leave to the Applicant to amend the Grounds of Application as set out in para.73 of the Applicant's Skeleton Argument.