Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001215/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 October 1996 before Findlay J.
Administrative law – judicial review – leave to apply – setting aside leave – disciplinary proceedings against public servants – Department of Housing – absence from duty – false entries in attendance books – whether applications out of time – whether good reason for extending time – whether material non-disclosure – whether prejudice – whether detriment to good administration – Applicants were very lowly public servants in the Department of Housing disciplined in 1994 and 1995 for absence from work without leave and for making false entries in attendance books, resulting in compulsory retirement or dismissal – Total of 1171 officers disciplined for such conduct, with 37 including the nine applicants removed from service – In earlier Cheung's case, disciplinary findings were quashed for total failure to investigate whether applicants had permission from superiors and whether superiors knew of false entries – Applicants applied for leave to bring judicial review in April and May 1996, granted by Keith J who found cases similar to Cheung's case and extended time – Issue on whether applications were out of time and whether good reason existed for extending the period – Holding that the law requires good reason for extending the period, not good reason for the delay, and that applying within three months of the earlier Cheung decision was good reason – Issue on whether failure to disclose that applicants had not raised permission issue before disciplinary committees amounted to material non-disclosure – Holding that any such non-disclosure was not deliberate as it was a matter of record, and discretion exercised in favour of proceeding because justice demanded it – Issue on whether prejudice from unavailability of supervisors justified setting aside leave – Holding that absence of individual supervisors would not hamper inquiry into general departmental practice regarding tolerance of absences – Issue on whether good administration required setting aside leave – Holding that respondent's case was not overwhelming, which counsel accepted meant it was not appropriate to consider at this stage – Respondent's application refused – Order nisi that respondent pay applicants' costs.
Legal issues: Whether leave granted for judicial review should be set aside for undue delay · Whether material non-disclosure warranted setting aside leave · Whether prejudice to the respondent justified setting aside leave · Whether setting aside leave was required for good administration
Outcome: Respondent's application to set aside leave granted by Keith J is refused.