Read the full judgment text of CACV 39/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 November 2020 before 朱芬齡, 區慶祥, 林雲浩.
Civil appeal – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – decision of Director of Legal Aid to discharge legal aid certificate – appeal to Registrar under s.26 of the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap 91) – whether judicial review available to challenge Registrar's decision – whether CFI judge erred in refusing leave – scope of judicial review – Registrar's decision is final under s.26(4) – review limited to lawful basis, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural unfairness – identity of deciding officer – Deputy Registrar Lai signed the rejection notice – Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 1) s.3 – reliance on assigned counsel's opinions, joint medical report and employer's work schedules – bare allegations of forgery insufficient – CFI judge not required to investigate factual disputes of underlying negligence action – mediation costs allocation – mediation generally covers all related claims – allocation of mediation costs to personal injury case does not bar continuation – mediation costs issue unrelated to Registrar's decision – facts – applicant employed as cleaner by Pizzaexpress from 2008 – alleged repetitive strain injuries April-May 2016 – employees' compensation claim (DCEC 255/2017) settled for HK$120,000 – negligence claim (HCPI 518/2017) – counsel's opinions concluded no reasonable basis – Director cancelled legal aid certificate 19 November 2018 – LAA 1661/2018 appeal dismissed 18 June 2019 – CFI judge refused leave for judicial review 13 January 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 107) – Court of Appeal dismisses appeal – no order as to costs.
Legal issues: Whether the CFI judge erred in confirming the legal aid appeal was decided by Deputy Registrar Lai · Scope of judicial review of the Registrar's decision on a legal aid appeal · Propriety of the lower court and Registrar relying on medical report, counsel's opinions and employer's work schedules · Whether the CFI judge erred in not investigating the applicant's actual work environment and staffing · Whether the allocation of mediation fees and the employees' compensation settlement deprived the applicant of her right to pursue the personal injury action
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 14 cases · Cites 2 cases