Read the full judgment text of CACV 195/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 June 1994 before Power VP, Mortimer JA, Godfrey JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – disciplinary proceedings of domestic body – Stock Exchange of Hong Kong – alternative remedy – right of appeal to Disciplinary Appeals Committee – whether exceptional circumstances justify immediate court intervention – self-regulation – apparent bias – refusal of legal representation – breach of natural justice – adjournment pending related civil proceedings. Onshine Securities Limited, a member of the Stock Exchange, was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee on four charges under Rule 601 of the Exchange Rules relating to the conduct of three runners including Yeung Shu Hung who misappropriated shares from customers – held: that the Disciplinary Committee acted unfairly in refusing legal representation and in other respects contrary to natural justice – assumed for purposes of judgment. Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify immediate judicial review despite right of appeal to Disciplinary Appeals Committee (D.A.C.) – held: no, exceptional circumstances required. Whether disciplinary structure tainted by apparent bias because members of Compliance, Disciplinary and D.A.C. committees all sat on the Stock Exchange Council – held: no apparent bias established. Whether Disciplinary Committee erred in refusing to adjourn pending HCA 4343/91 – held: no, Stock Exchange entitled to proceed swiftly in public interest. Onshine did not exhaust its alternative domestic remedy by appealing to the D.A.C. before seeking judicial review; the court will not second-guess the appellate tribunal in the absence of exceptional circumstances requiring immediate intervention, following Calvin v Carr and ex parte Calveley. Where a domestic body's appellate procedure may or may not ensure justice, the aggrieved party should generally wait and see what the appellate tribunal decides; if it quashes the lower decision, that is an end of the matter; if it affirms, judicial review may then be sought on the basis that the procedure as a whole was unfair. Appeal allowed; Onshine's application for judicial review refused.
Legal issues: Whether exceptional circumstances justified immediate judicial review despite an available alternative domestic remedy · Whether the Stock Exchange disciplinary structure was tainted by apparent bias · Whether the Disciplinary Committee acted unfairly in refusing to adjourn the disciplinary proceedings
Outcome: Appeal allowed; the decision of Mayo J. granting judicial review is set aside and Onshine's application for judicial review is refused