Read the full judgment text of CACV 000039/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 July 1993 before Nazareth JA, Litton JA, Liu J.
Civil appeal – statutory stay of proceedings under s.15 Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap 91) – dismissal of application for leave to appeal from Labour Tribunal for want of prosecution – whether deputy judge erred in lifting statutory stay and dismissing application – statutory stay triggered automatically by filing of memorandum of notification under s.15(2) – prescribed stay period of 42 days under reg.7A Legal Aid Regulations – whether claimant or Legal Aid Department under duty to vacate listed hearing date during stay – no such duty unless application made so shortly before hearing that court cannot learn of stay in time – deputy judge misdirected himself in fact (file incomplete) and in law (assumed non-existent duty) – held stay should have remained in place – courts should be slow to lift s.15 stay before legal aid application determined, especially for layman raising points of law – appeal allowed – order set aside – matter remitted to High Court for hearing by different judge – no order as to costs by agreement – observation that costs of Legal Aid Department should in such circumstances be met out of public funds rather than the modest claim of about HK$19,000
Legal issues: Validity of lifting statutory stay under s.15(4) Legal Aid Ordinance · Existence of duty to vacate hearing date during statutory stay · Review of exercise of discretion on dismissal for want of prosecution
Outcome: Appeal allowed; the order of Deputy Judge J. Chan dated 16 December 1992 lifting the stay and dismissing the application for leave to appeal was set aside; the matter was remitted to the High Court for the application for leave to be heard by a different judge.
Cited by 14 cases