Wilmes Franz Josef v. Coroner, West Kowloon Court
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1413/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. Leave is refused because the proposed grounds of the judicial review are not reasonably arguable.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCAL1413/2018 [2018] HKCFI 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1413 of 2018 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by The Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Chan:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.Leave is refused because the proposed grounds of the judicial review are not reasonably arguable. 2.The court in judicial review performs a supervisory role which looks only at the legality and not the merit of the challenged decision. 3.Legality in the context of judicial review means whether, in the challenged decision, any error of law or material procedural irregularity had been committed by the lower tribunal or if it acted Wednesbury unreasonably. 4.In the present case, a reportable death (uncertain cause of death) had been made to the Coroner. Both the attending physician and the pathologist at Queen Mary Hospital had not been able to provide a cause of death. 5.The applicant (the deceased’s husband) was also of the view that the apparent cause of death, as presently appeared on the reportable death form, was incorrectly stated. 6.Further, the applicant also raised concerns and / or dissatisfaction regarding treatments (or lack of them) the deceased received during her stay at Queen Mary Hospital. 7.The Coroners Ordinance empowers the Coroner to investigate into a reportable death. Given the circumstances of this case, it is incumbent upon the Coroner to investigate into the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death. 8.Having examined all the documents and the transcripts of the hearing at the Coroner’s Court, I am of the view that the Coroner had acted in accordance with the law and followed the statutory procedure as prescribed. He had not committed any error of law, procedural irregularity and / or acted unreasonably. Dated the 31st day of August 2018.
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Form CALL-1 |
Other judgments that cite this case