Read the full judgment text of CACV 234/2019, CACV 317/2019, CACV 319/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 June 2021 before Poon CJHC, Lam VP and Au JA.
Civil procedure – costs – judicial review – public interest litigation (PIL) exception – Small House Policy – constitutionality under BL40 – three criteria from Chu Hoi Dick – whether 'properly brought' refers to standing or delay – judicial review concerning building licences, private treaty grants and land exchanges for New Territories indigenous inhabitants – discrimination on grounds of sex and social origin – whether PIL exception applies against respondents and against non-government interested party (Heung Yee Kuk) – whether separately represented party raising distinct issue entitled to own set of costs – costs follow the event under Order 62 rule 3(2) RHC – whether sufficient standing to bring judicial review – whether inordinate delay – relief issue not plainly unmeritorious – application of Oshlack v Richmond River Council – rationale of mitigating chilling effect – Australian authorities extending PIL exception to non-government bodies – leading texts not distinguishing between government and non-government bodies – statements in Chu Hoi Dick made in context where issue not live – core rationale unaffected by identity of opposing party – no order as to costs as between applicants and respondents – no order as to costs as between applicants and interested party.
Legal issues: Whether the public interest litigation (PIL) exception applies to costs between applicants and respondents in a judicial review challenging the Small House Policy · Whether the interested party is entitled to a separate set of costs from the applicants · Whether the PIL exception extends to a successful non-government body such as the interested party
Outcome: No order as to costs of the appeal and below as between the applicants and the respondents, and no order as to costs of the appeal and below as between the applicants and the interested party. Applications for certificate for three counsel were not granted (no certificate ordered).
Cited by 14 cases · Cites 4 cases