Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

郭卓堅 v 立法會主席梁君彥 And Another

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 May 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 919
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCAL918/2020
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL918/2020 郭卓堅 v. 立法會主席梁君彥 AND ANOTHER

HCAL 918/2020

[2020] HKCFI 919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 918 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN
郭卓堅 Applicant

and
立法會主席梁君彥 1st Putative Respondent
立法會議員陳健波 2nd Putative Respondent

________________________

Before: Hon Chow J in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 May 2020

Date of Decision: 27 May 2020

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1. In this application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Applicant seeks to challenge (i) the decision of the President of the Legislative Council (1st Putative Respondent) on 15 May 2020 to invoke Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR (“the ROP”) to appoint Mr Chan Kin-por (“the 2nd Putative Respondent”), a member of the Legislative Council, to preside over the election of the Chairman of the House Committee for the 2019-20 session of the 6th term of the Legislative Council at the House Committee meeting scheduled for 18 May 2020 (“the Decision”), and (ii) the 2nd Putative Respondent’s acceptance of the said appointment by the 1st Putative Respondent.

2. In the Form 86 dated 18 May 2020, the Applicant also asked the court to convene an urgent oral hearing after 6:00 pm on 18 May 2020 to consider his application for leave to apply for judicial review, and grant interim relief to restrain the holding of the proposed House Committee meeting on 18 May 2020.

3. By the time that the Form 86 came to the attention of this court, the House Committee meeting on 18 May 2020 had already been held, and the incumbent Chairperson of the House Committee had been re-elected as the Chairperson of the House Committee for the 2019-20 session of the 6th term of the Legislative Council. Accordingly, the urgency of the interim application had been overtaken by events.

4. On 18 May 2020, the court directed an inter partes oral hearing on 22 May 2020 to consider the Applicant’s applications for leave to apply for judicial review and interim relief.

5. Rule 92 of the ROP states as follows: “In any matter not provided for in these Rules of Procedure, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures”.

6. In essence, the Applicant’s argument is that the 1st Putative Respondent has no power under Rule 92 of the ROP to appoint the 2nd Putative Respondent to preside at the House Committee meeting on 18 May 2020 in relation to the matter of election of the Chairman of the House Committee, because that matter is expressly provided for in the ROP, namely, Rule 75, which, so far as relevant, states as follows:

“(1) There shall be a committee, to be called the House Committee, the members of which shall be all the Members...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT