HCAL 79/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 79 OF 2016
____________________
In the Matter of an Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (O 53, r 3, Rules of High Court Cap 4A)
and
In the Matter of Land adjacent to Lot No 727 s A ss 10, 11, 12, 22 & 23 in DD 40 (No 37A, 37B1, 37B2, 37B3, 37C, 37D, 37E, 37F, 37G, 37H, 37J and No 37K, Chung Ying Street, Sha Tau Kok, New Territories, Hong Kong 新界沙頭角中英街 37A1, 37A2, 37A3, 37B, 37C, 37D, 37E, 37F, 37G, 37H, 37J 及 No 37K) Comprising 14 commercial retailing shop (“the Shops”)
____________________
BETWEEN
TANG HOI SANG (鄧海生)
1st Applicant
NG YIN HA (吳燕霞)
2nd Applicant
CHAN WAI CHUN (陳偉珍)
3rd Applicant
CHUNG WAI HUNG (鍾偉雄)
4th Applicant
TANG KWAI PING (鄧桂平)
5th Applicant
TSANG WING YIN (曾穎然)
6th Applicant
WONG CHI FAI (黃知輝)
7th Applicant
LAM YUET KWAN (藍月群)
8th Applicant
LIU YUK TAI (廖玉娣)
9th Applicant
LEE YICK LING (李翊稜)
10th Applicant
CHAN SAU LING CHRISTINA (陳秀玲)
11th Applicant
LEE TSHUN PIN (李俊平)
12th Applicant
WONG MAN YAT (黃文日)
13th Applicant
LEE FUK MING (李福明)
14th Applicant
AND
DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Putative
Respondent
____________________
Before: Hon G Lam J in Chambers
Date of Written Submissions: 13 and 26 April 2017
Date of Decision on Costs: 23 May 2017
____________________
DECISION ON COSTS
____________________
1. The putative respondent has asked for her costs following the dismissal of the application for leave to apply for judicial review on 30 March 2017. The general rule is that an unsuccessful applicant for leave will not be ordered to pay costs unless there are special or unusual circumstances that justify an award: Leung Kwok Hung v President of Legislative Council (No 2) (2014) 17 HKCFAR 841 at §17.
2. For the reasons below, I consider that there are special circumstances in this case such that the applicants should be required to pay the putative respondent’s costs:
(1) The challenge against Decision 1 was one and a half months out of time. The putative respondent was entitled to oppose any extension of time.
(2) It was clear that Decision 2 was not a legally determinative decision, and was both preceded and followed by proper s 6 notices which were not being challenged at all. The application against Decision 2 was obviously futile.
(3) The applicants contend that the putative respondent’s argument at the hearing did not add much to the Initial Response. On the arguments presented in the Initial Response, the grounds on which I eventually dismissed their application should already be clear to the applicants. In the absence of any real answer to the points raised, the disputes about the facts could not assist the applicants. The application was wholly without merits in law for the reasons explained in my decision, and the further pursuit of the application should be known to be hopeless, at any rate after the Initial Response if not before.
3. I would however exclude the costs of the hearing on 13 March 2017 which concerned the applicants’ application for leave to file further evidence. It seems to me that on the stance taken by the putative respondent to that application their attendance was largely unnecessary.
4. There will therefore be an order that the applicants do pay the putative respondent’s costs of and relating to the application for leave to apply for judicial review after the Initial Response but excluding the costs of the hearing of the application to adduce further evidence on 13 March 2017.
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
Written submissions by Ms Lorinda Lau and Mr Forest Fong, instructed by Chow Wong & Lawyers, for the Applicants
Written submissions by Mr Anthony Chan, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Putative Respondent