Chow Wai Tak v. Mr Li Chi Ho, A Magistrate Sitting At Shatin Magistracy and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1721/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 September 2020.
1. There are two applications before the court:
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 1721/2020 [2020] HKCFI 2494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1721 OF 2020 ________________________
________________________
___________________ D E C I S I O N ___________________ INTRODUCTION 1.There are two applications before the court:
BACKGROUND FACTS 2.The Applicant is the owner of Flat 02, 29th Floor, Kam Ngar House (Block H), Kam Ngar Ying Court, Ma On Shan, Hong Kong (“the Applicant’s Flat”), which is occupied by him and his wife. (i) Stage I - confirmation of water seepage 3.On 15 February 2019, the Joint Office of the Buildings Department and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“the Joint Office”) received a water seepage complaint (“the Complaint”) from the occupier (“the Complainant”) of the flat (“the Complainant’s Flat”) directly underneath the Applicant’s Flat. 4.In response to the Complaint, the Joint Office commenced investigation in April 2019. On-site investigation conducted at the Complainant’s Flat on 18 April 2019 revealed an average moisture content above 35% (with a range between 25.0% and 42.5%) on the kitchen ceiling, and an average moisture content below 35% (with a range between 17.6% and 26.9%) on the bathroom ceiling of the Complainant’s Flat. The Complainant suggested that the source of seepage might be rain water penetration from a defect in the external wall of the building. However, taking into consideration that the seepage apparently persisted during non-rainy days, the Joint Office considered that the source of seepage could be from the Applicant’s Flat. 5.The Joint Office’s staff were, however, unable to inspect the Applicant’s Flat on 18 April 2019 because it was under lock and key. A Notice of Appointment was left in the mailbox of the Applicant’s Flat requesting him to arrange a convenient time for the Joint Office’s staff to conduct an inspection of his flat. No response was received by the Joint Office to that notice. (ii) Stage II - initial investigation 6.On 28 May 2019, the Joint Office’s staff made a further visit to the Applicant’s Flat and found the Applicant. The Joint Office’s staff informed the Applicant of the Complaint and the purpose of the visit. With the Applicant’s consent, the Joint Office’s staff entered the Applicant’s Flat and carried out a “Colour Water Test” in the bathroom and kitchen of the Applicant’s Flat. 7.On 1 August 2019, the Joint Office’s staff attended the Complainant’s Flat to review the result of the Colour Water Test. On inspection, the originally affected kitchen ceiling was found to be dry and thus no moisture content measure was taken. However, the bathroom ceiling was detected to have a moisture content above 35% (with a range between 21% and 40.2%). A sample was collected from the bathroom ceiling for analysis by the Government Laboratory. A negative result was returned on 26 August 2019, meaning that the source of seepage could not be identified by the Colour Water Test carried out on 28 May 2019. 8.On 6 September 2019, the Joint Office wrote to the Applicant informing him that despite the Colour Water Test carried out on 28 May 2019, they could not confirm the source of the water seepage. The Joint Office further stated that, due to the persistence of the water seepage problem, it would consider referring the Complaint for professional investigation. (iii) Stage III - professional investigation 9.On 18 October 2019, the Joint Office issued a letter to the Applicant informing him that the Joint Office would assign the case to a consultant, Easy Living Consultant Limited (“the Consultant”), to further investigate the Complaint. 10.On 26 October 2019, the Consultant contacted the Applicant to make an appointment for on-site investigation at the Applicant’s Flat, but the Applicant refused the appointment. 11.On 30 October 2019, the Consultant visited the Complainant’s Flat. Upon inspection, moisture content above 35% (with a range of between 9.7% to 52.3%) was detected on the bathroom ceiling. The originally affected kitchen ceiling, which was found to be dry on 1 August 2019, was now detected to have a moisture content below 35% (with a range between 15.8% and 26.2%). 12.On the same day (30 October 2019), the Consultant visited the Applicant’s Flat, informing the Applicant that:
13.According to the Applicant:
14.The Applicant’s reason for objecting to the Ponding Test being carried out in the living room and hallway is that the flooring of the living room and hallway is made of wood, as is the furniture placed therein. As such, the flooring and furniture would be at risk of damage by the colour water used in the Ponding Test[1]. The Applicant further says that due to their old age (in their 80s) and poor health, he and his wife are unable to move the furniture out of the way for the Ponding Test to be carried out. 15.On the other hand, it is the evidence of the Director that:
16.On 31 October 2019, the Applicant contacted the Joint Office stating that the Consultant had visited his flat on 30 October 2019, and claiming (amongst other things) that the Consultant had indicated that the Ponding Test and Water Spraying Test would be carried in the kitchen, bathroom and hallway of his flat. The Joint Office explained to the Applicant that the Ponding Test and Water Spraying Test would only be carried out in the kitchen and bathroom (including the adjacent balcony). The Joint Office also reassured the Applicant that its workers would clean up the affected areas after completion of the tests. Nevertheless, the Applicant maintained his objection to the Consultant entering his flat to carry out the said tests. 17.On 2 and 10 January 2020 and 21 May 2020, the Director’s representatives, with prior notice, attempted to enter the Applicant’s Flat for the purpose of carrying the Ponding Test and Water Spraying Test. They were unable to do so because no one answered the door. (iv) The application for the Warrant 18.On 4 May 2020, the Director issued to the Applicant a “Notice of Intention to Apply for Warrant of Entry” by registered post, which was successfully served on the Applicant on 8 May 2020. 19.On 28 May 2020, the Director’s representatives visited the Complainant’s Flat. Upon inspection, the bathroom ceiling was found to have a moisture content above 35% (with a range between 12.3% and 39.5%), and the kitchen ceiling was also found to have a moisture content above 35% (with a range between 47.1% and 89.0%). 20.By a letter dated 1 June 2020 to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Applicant’s lawyers, Messrs Yu, Chan & Yeung (“YCY”) reiterated that the Applicant would not consent to the Ponding Test being carried out in the living room. Further, YCY requested that they be given at least 2 clear days’ written notice of any intended application for a warrant to enter the Applicant’s Flat. 21.On 26 June 2020, the Joint Office issued a reply to YCY confirming, amongst other matters, that:
The Joint Office also pointed out that water seepage was usually caused by defective building fabrics or installations and/or the lack of proper building maintenance, and it was the responsibility of the owners/occupiers concerned to maintain their buildings and to ensure environmental hygiene. The Joint Office again requested for the Applicant’s co-operation to enable the water seepage in the Complainant’s Flat to be investigated. There was no response to the Joint Office’s letter dated 26 June 2020. 22.On 14 August 2020, the Joint Office issued a letter to YCY informing them that its Health Inspector would apply to the Shatin Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2020 for a warrant to effect entry into the Applicant’s Flat under s 126(2) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap 132 (“the Ordinance”). Section 126 of the Ordinance, so far as relevant, states as follows:
23.By a letter in reply dated 20 August 2020, YCY on behalf of the Applicant maintained his objection to the carrying out of the Ponding Test in the Applicant’s Flat, and suggested that other tests (such as tests involving the use of infrared or microwave detectors) could be carried out with the Ponding Test being used as a last resort. YCY also requested the Joint Office to provide copies of their letters dated 1 June 2020 and 20 August 2020 to the magistrate for his consideration of the application for the warrant. 24.On 21 August 2020, the Director made an application to the Magistrate for a warrant to effect entry into the Applicant’s Flat. As requested by YCY, copies of their letters dated 1 June 2020 and 20 August 2020 were placed before the Magistrate for his consideration of the application. 25.On 21 August 2020, the Magistrate issued the Warrant under s 126(2) of the Ordinance authorizing representatives of the Director to enter the Applicant’s Flat to execute his duties under the Ordinance. It is expressly stated in the Warrant that it can only be executed on or before 30 September 2020 and the Warrant will automatically lapse after 30 September 2020 unless it has been extended. (v) The current position 26.On 24 August 2020, YCY lodged papers with the court seeking (i) leave to apply for judicial review of the Warrant, and (ii) interim relief to restrain the Director from executing the Warrant pending the final determination of the application for leave to apply for judicial review. On the same day, the court gave directions to YCY for (i) service of the papers on the Putative Respondents, and (ii) an oral hearing of the application for interim relief on 26 August 2020. YCY served the relevant papers on the Department of Justice on 25 August 2020. 27.By a letter dated 25 August 2020, the Joint Office informed the Applicant that the Director had obtained the Warrant to effect entry into his flat to conduct inspection and tests for the purpose of ascertaining the source of the water seepage, and the Director’s authorized officers intended to execute the Warrant. A copy of the Warrant was enclosed with the Joint Office’ letter of 25 August 2020. The Joint Office also wrote to YCY on 25 August 2020 informing them that the Director had obtained the Warrant, and confirmed that their letters dated 1 June 2020 and 20 August 2020 had been placed before the Magistrate for his consideration of the application for the Warrant. 28.On 25 August 2020, the Director’ representatives visited the Complainant’s Flat. It was found that (i) the moisture content on the kitchen ceiling was above 35% (with a range between 26.4% and 69.9%), and (ii) the moisture content on the bathroom ceiling was also above 35% (with a range between 14.5% and 99.9%). Based on these latest findings, the Director considers that the water seepage problem in the Complainant’s Flat has deteriorated. The Director also considers that the water seepage may be caused by issues with the water supply system in the Applicant’s Flat, and it is necessary to carry out the Ponding Test, Water Spray Test and Reversible Pressure Test in the Applicant’s Flat to trace the source of the water seepage. On that occasion, the Complainant also complained that the water dripped from his kitchen ceiling would fill up a bowl placed underneath the dripping point in about 2 days. However, the Applicant says that no water dripping was observed in the kitchen ceiling of the Complainant’s Flat during a mutual inspection on 28 August 2020. 29.As confirmed by Ms Carol Lee (for the Applicant) at the hearing on 21 September 2020, the Applicant’s current position is that he objects to the Director’s representatives entering his flat to carry out the Ponding Test and Water Spray Test in the kitchen (including the balcony) and bathroom. APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND INTERIM INJUNCTION 30.On 25 August 2020, the Application made the present application for leave to apply for judicial review. 31.On 26 August 2020, the court, upon the Director’s undertaking not to execute the Warrant for a period of 4 weeks up to 23 September 2020, adjourned the hearing of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and the application for interim relief to 21 September 2020, and gave directions regarding evidence to be filed by the parties. 32.On 17 September 2020, the Applicant issued an inter partes summons seeking an interim injunction against the Director from executing the Warrant pending the determination of the application for judicial review or further order of the court. 33.In the Form 86, the Applicant raises the following grounds of judicial review:
34.In the Supplemental Skeleton Argument of Ms Lee dated 17 September 2020, at §8, and in her oral submissions, she confirmed that the Applicant had decided not to pursue Ground 3 of judicial review. THE JOINT OFFICE’S PRACTICE FOR INVESTIGATING WATER SEEPAGE COMPLAINTS 35.The Joint Office’s practice for investigating water seepage complaints is set out in a document entitled “Notes to Owners/Occupants - General Procedures for Investigating Water Seepage” (“the Notes”). The following provisions in the Notes are relevant for the present purpose:
36.The following points may be noted at this stage:
37.The tests mentioned in (4) above are referred to as “conventional testing methods” in a Legco Paper No CB(2)517/19-20(05) entitled “Briefing on the Work of the Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints” dated January 2020 (“the Legco Paper”). In that paper, it is mentioned that the Joint Office will also use “new testing technologies”, namely, infrared thermograph (IT) and microwave tomography (MT), in various pilot districts and in more complicated cases in non-pilot districts. The Shatin District (covering the Applicant’s Flat in Ma On Shan) is not situated within the pilot districts. The following matters are stated in the Legco Paper:
GROUND 1 OF JUDICIAL REVIEW DOES NOT GO TO THE LEGALITY OR RATIONALTIY OF THE WARRANT 38.There are two sub-grounds under Ground 1 of judicial review, namely:
39.The “decision” under challenge in the present application for leave to apply for judicial review concerns the Warrant issued by the Magistrate, not the decision of the Director to apply for the Warrant. That this is so is clear from the subject matter referred to as the “Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought” in the Form 86, and from the substantive relief sought, namely, an order of certiorari to quash the Warrant. The other relief mentioned in the Form 86 have fallen by the wayside: (i) the order of mandamus sought to compel the production of a copy of the Warrant has been abandoned by the Applicant, as confirmed by Ms Lee at the hearing, and (ii) the declaration sought that the Warrant did not comply with s 126 of the Ordinance relates to Ground 3, which has also been abandoned by the Applicant. 40.The Warrant is an order or decision made by the Magistrate in the exercise of his judicial powers. Even if the Director had failed to take into account relevant considerations when exercising his power to apply for the Warrant, or had failed and/or neglected and/or refused to bring a relevant matter or matters to the Magistrate’s attention, it does not necessarily follow that the Magistrate erred in law or failed to take into account relevant considerations when exercising his power to issue the Warrant (as contended by the Applicant). 41.The Applicant has not applied to amend the Form 86 to challenge the Director’s decision to apply for the Warrant, despite the fact that the need to amend the Form 86 was expressly raised in the course of the hearing on 21 September 2020, albeit on a different matter. The present application must therefore be considered strictly on the basis of the current Form 86 dated 25 August 2020 before the court. Thus, even if the Applicant’s complaint under Ground 1 is valid, it cannot, of itself, lead to the quashing of the Warrant. GROUND 1A: FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS 42.Under this ground, the Applicant argues that the Director failed to take into account three relevant matters when exercising his statutory power to apply for the Warrant:
43.In relation to the complaint under §42(1) above, Ms Lee argues that the Notes give rise to a legitimate expectation that the procedures stated therein would be followed and that the “suspected” unit, being the subject of the investigation, shall be provided with core information in relation to the progress of an investigation, such as:
44.While it is correct, as earlier mentioned, that the Notes provide that the Joint Office would normally not investigate cases where the water seepage originated from penetration of rain water in some circumstances, or where the relevant water seepage reports indicate moisture content below 35%, there is nothing in the Notes to suggest that the Joint Office would keep updating the Applicant in respect of the evidence and findings arising from the Joint Office’s ongoing investigation of the cause of the water seepage such as to give rise to any relevant legitimate expectation on the part of the Applicant. 45.The following table summarizes the evidence before the court concerning the moisture content of the affected areas in the Complainant’s Flat on various dates when measurements were taken:
46.It can be seen that:
47.It has not been suggested that the Joint Office should have stopped investigation as soon as there was one measurement showing a moisture content below 35%. It has also not been suggested, and there is no evidence to show, that the water seepage in the kitchen and bathroom of the Complainant’s Flat originates from two different sources. Whether there are one or more sources of the water seepage is something which has to be investigated by the Joint Office. Even if the evidence relating to the findings on moisture content in the Complainant’s Flat ought to have been provided to the Applicant, I do not see that the provision of such information to the Applicant could, or would, have affected the Director’s decision to proceed with the investigation of the Complaint, including the decision to apply for the Warrant to enable his representatives to enter the Applicant’s Flat to carry out the Ponding Test and Water Spray Test. 48.In relation to the possibility that the source of the water seepage in the Complainant’s Flat may have been rainwater penetrated through the external wall, this possibility was expressly considered by the Joint Office, which took the view that, because the water seepage persisted during non-rainy days, the “water path could be possibly from the floor above” (ie the Applicant’s Flat), and thus the matter required further investigation[10]. 49.Ms Lee submits that “[o]n those dates (the ‘Relevant Dates’) when inspections were carried [out] in the Downstairs Apartment by the Joint Office … it can be noted from both the records of the Joint Office and the Hong Kong Observatory that the Relevant Dates (or in the 2 days preceding the Relevant Dates) were mostly cloudy/rainy days in the Shatin area and it tallies with the suggestion that the water seepage is possibly caused by rain penetration through the external wall”[11]. It can be seen, however, from the table under §45 above that moisture content above 35% on the kitchen and bathroom ceilings of the Complainant’s Flat was recorded on sunny, cloudy and rainy days. Whether to exclude the possibility of the Applicant’s Flat as being the source of the water seepage in the Complainant’s Flat is a matter of professional judgment which the Joint Office is in a much better position than the court to make. Unless the Joint Office’s view is not supported by any evidence or is plainly unreasonable, there would be no basis for the court to interfere with such view in an application for judicial review (see U Storage Group Limited v Director of Fire Services & Director of Building [2020] HKCFI 2114, at §16, per Wilson Chan J). 50.Ms Lee’s suggestion that the water seepage in the Complainant’s Flat may be the result of improper maintenance of the external wall of the building[12] is not supported by any credible evidence. 51.There is nothing in the materials before the court to show that the Joint Office has acted contrary to its general procedures for investigating water seepage as set out in the Notes. 52.In relation to the complaint under §42(2) above, ie that the Applicant had not refused the Director entry into his flat, the issue is not simply whether he had allowed the Director’s representatives to enter the premises, but whether they were allowed to carry out the Ponding Test and Water Spray in the bathroom and kitchen of the Applicant’s Flat. Regardless of whether there was any misunderstanding or miscommunication on 30 October 2019 concerning the proposed test areas, any such misunderstanding or miscommunication was cleared by the Joint Office’s letter dated 26 June 2020 to YCY, which stated unequivocally that no tests would not be carried out in the living room or corridor (or hallway) of the Applicant’s Flat. The Applicant’s continued refusal to allow the Director’s representatives to enter his flat to carry out the Ponding Test and Spray Water Test based on his objection to such tests being carried out in the living room or hallway is, in my view, disingenuous. I pause to observe that although it is stated, at §37.2 of the Form 86, that the Applicant “had consented to the Director’s admission into the Premises for the purpose of carrying out … the Ponding Test and the Water Spray Test (as per the Director’s wish) on the bathroom and kitchen floors”, Ms Lee informed the court at the hearing on 21 September 2020 that the Applicant now objects to such entry into his flat. 53.In respect of the complaint under §42(3) above, although there may be other technologies (such as infrared thermograph and microwave tomography) that could, in theory, be deployed to investigate the source of the water seepage in this case, those technologies are not listed in the Notes and, under the Joint Office’s current policy, are not deployed outside the pilot districts. Ms Lee’s reliance on the reference in §8 of the Legco Paper to the possible use of the new testing technologies in “complicated cases in non-pilot districts” does not assist the Applicant, because it is stated that such use will be considered only “if the source of seepage cannot be identified by conventional testing methods”. 54.Whether it is appropriate to use the conventional testing methods, ie the Ponding Test and Water Spray Test, to investigate the source of the water seepage in the Complainant’s Flat is a matter of professional judgment for the Joint Office to determine. There are no statutory or other mandatory provisions which require the Director to consider using the infrared thermograph and microwave tomography technologies in this case. I do not see that the Director has acted in breach of any duty, or failed to take into account a relevant consideration, in deciding to use the aforesaid conventional testing methods in this case. 55.As for the alleged interference with the Applicant’s rights under BOR 14 (protection of privacy, family and home), such interference can readily be justified upon the application of the well-established 4-stage proportionality test:
56.In her Supplemental Skeleton Argument, at §§26-30, Ms Lee has attempted to raise various other matters in support of the contention that the Director acted ultra vires in making the application for the Warrant under s 126(2) of the Ordinance. In particular, it is alleged that:
57.Since these complaints have not been raised in the Form 86, the Applicant is not entitled to rely on them. It would be unfair to allow the Applicant to raise these complaints through Ms Lee’s submissions dated 17 September 2020 given that the Director had, in accordance with the court’s directions, already filed evidence on 9 September 2020. In any event, I fail to see how the matters complained of can support an argument that the Director acted ultra vires in making an application under s 126(2) of the Ordinance. 58.In all, Ground 1A of judicial review is rejected. GROUND 1B: FAILURE TO BRING A RELEVANT MATTER OR MATTERS TO THE MAGISTRATE’S ATTENTION 59.The Applicant’s complaint under this ground of judicial review was mounted on a speculative basis, in the sense that the Applicant did not in fact know what materials were placed before the Magistrate in support of the application for the Warrant. That this is so is shown by the fact that, in the Form 86, at §40.1, one of the matters which the Applicant alleges the Director “had failed and/or neglected and/or refused to bring to the Magistrate’s attention” was the “1/6 Letter and 20/8 Letter and the contents thereof”. As confirmed in the affirmation of Cheung Suk Fun, at §§42 and 46, copies of YCY’s letters dated 1 June 2020 and 20 August 2020 were in fact placed before the Magistrate for his consideration of the application for the Warrant. 60.It is not, in my view, proper practice for an applicant seeking leave to apply for judicial review to make an allegation without evidential basis and then hope that the respondent, in answering the application, would disclose materials which may support the application. 61.The other matters which it is alleged the Director failed to bring to attention of the Magistrate are:
62.I have dealt with these matters in §§52 and 53-54 above.
63.In her Supplemental Skeleton Argument, at §34, Ms Lee has attempted to raise other matters which it is said the Director ought to have, but failed to, bring to the attention of the Magistrate. Since those matters are not raised in the Form 86, the Applicant is not entitled to rely on them. 64.I should also mention that in the Form 86, the Applicant describes Ground 1 as “The Application for the Warrant was Procedurally Improper and Ultra Vires”. These additional labels (ie, “procedurally improper” and “ultra vires”) do not add anything of substance to the Applicant’s case. GROUND 2: THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN LAW AND/OR FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS 65.In the Form 86, it is said that this ground is “the flip side of Ground 1B”, and “if the two relevant matters[14] were in fact brought to the attention of the Magistrate, he must either have erred in law when applying the test set out in section 126(2) of the Ordinance, or have failed to take those matters into account when exercising his powers to issue the Warrant”[15]. 66.The text of s 126(2) of the Ordinance has been set out in §22 above. For the purpose of issuing a warrant under that section, a magistrate needs to be satisfied, based on sworn information in writing, of the following matters:
67.Whether any matters are relevant and ought to be taken into account by a magistrate when exercising his powers to issue a warrant under s 126(2) of the Ordinance must also be judged by reference to the above statutory criteria. 68.On the face of the Warrant, the Magistrate was satisfied of the matters mentioned in §66 above based on sworn information. No error of law on the part of the Magistrate has been disclosed either on the face of the Warrant or on the materials before the court. 69.The Applicant’s complaint that the Magistrate failed to take into account relevant considerations is based on the assumption that the matters referred to in §§40.1 and 40.2 of the Form 86 were brought to the attention of the Magistrate. Again, as in relation to Ground 1B, the Applicant’s case under Ground 2 was mounted on a speculative basis without any evidential support as to what materials were, or were not, placed before the Magistrate for his consideration of the application for the Warrant. In any event:
70.Ground 2 of judicial review has no merits. 71.In all, the intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success. DISPOSITION 72.For the foregoing reasons, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. It follows that the Applicant’s summons dated 17 September 2020 for an interim injunction is also dismissed. 73.The principles governing an award of costs in an unsuccessful application for leave to apply for judicial review are well settled and shall not be repeated here (see Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council (No 2) (2014) 17 HKCFAR 841). The hearing on 21 September 2020 was inevitable in view of the Applicant’s application for an interim injunction. Furthermore, the Applicant has effectively had a hearing on the substantive merits of the application for judicial review. I consider that there exist special circumstances in the present case justifying an award of costs against the Applicant in respect of his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Applicant shall pay the costs of the Director in respect of both the leave application and the interim injunction application, including the costs reserved on 26 August 2020, to be taxed if not agreed.
Ms Carol Lee, instructed by Yu, Chan & Yeung, for the Applicant The 1st Putative Respondent acting in person, absent Ms Vivian Kao, Senior Government Counsel of Department of Justice, for the 2nd Putative Respondent [1] See §35 below. [2] See §§36-38 of the Form 86. [3] See §§40-42 of the Form 86. [4] See §§45-46 of the Form 86. [5] See §§48-54 of the Form 86. [6] See §36 of the Form 86. [7] See §37 of the Form 86. [8] See §38 of the Form 86. [9] See §12 of Ms Lee’s Supplemental Skeleton Argument dated 17 September 2020. [10] See §2 of the Joint Office’s internal minutes (M.1) dated 28 May 2019. [11] See §6(3) of Ms Lee’s Supplemental Skeleton Argument. [12] See §17 of Ms Lee’s Supplemental Skeleton Argument. [13] See §§40.1 and 40.2 of the Form 86. [14] Ie, those referred to in §§40.1 and 40.2 of the Form 86. [15] See §§45 and 46 of the Form 86. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case