XCHRX LUK CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. (法律援助署(九龍))

HCA551/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.551 OF 2001

----------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. This an application by the defendant, the Director of Legal Aid, to dismiss the action issued by the plaintiffs, Luk Chi Keung and his wife Wan Chun Yi, against the defendant.

2. The history of this matter is this : in High Court Action No.2231/1995, the plaintiffs herein Luk Chi Keung and Wan Chun Yi were sued as defendants by the plaintiffs therein for failing to make payment on goods delivered. That action is currently before me and the trial started yesterday. The plaintiffs therein were given legal aid. This is part of the statutory scheme in Hong Kong when the Director of Legal Aid, after due consideration and having looked at all the material including the means of the applicant for legal aid and the merits of the case, could grant or refuse to grant legal aid. In that High Court Action No.2231/1995, the Director of Legal Aid had seen fit to grant legal aid to the plaintiffs therein.

3. The other party to the proceedings could not with one exception have any complaint in law against the granting of legal aid. The statutory scheme shows very clearly, under section 8(5) of the Legal Aid Regulations, that under limited circumstances the court might be able, in the course of the proceedings itself, to stop legal aid being continued. But outside that statutory scheme, no other person, as far as I know from case law in Hong Kong, could complain to the Director of Legal Aid as to the granting or not granting of legal aid.

4. What the plaintiffs herein had done in this action, No.551/2001, was that they issued an extraordinary writ against the Legal Aid Department, asking in its relief that legal aid was wrongly granted and should not have been given to the plaintiffs in Action No.2231/1995.

5. There is no basis for these legal proceedings against the Director of Legal Aid, and this action therefore must be immediately dismissed. I think Mr Ho, SGC for the defendant, is quite correct in his submission that the Statement of Claim must be struck out. The action is dismissed on the ground set out in the summons.

6. The plaintiffs must pay the costs of the action and costs of the summons to the defendant. I propose to hear Mr Ho as to the quantum of the costs pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) of the Rules of the High Court.

[Argument on costs]

7. Having heard the parties, I assess the costs under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) in the sum of $8,500 which sum to be paid immediately by the plaintiffs herein to the defendant herein.