Lo Siu Lan v. Hong Kong Housing Authority

FAMV No. 14 of 2005

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 14 OF 2005 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV NO. 378 OF 2004)

_____________________

Between:

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 26 May 2005

Date of Determination: 26 May 2005

__________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

__________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.Madam Lo challenges the lawfulness of the Housing Authority’s proposal to sell certain retail and car parking facilities in public housing developments.  The High Court dismissed her challenge.  And the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal to them.  On 5 July this year the Court of Final Appeal will commence hearing her appeal on the merits of the question whether the Housing Authority’s sale proposal is lawful or unlawful.  She now seeks leave to bring an extra appeal on the basis of her complaint that the Court of Appeal had unduly expedited her appeal to them.  In such extra appeal, if leave is granted to bring it, she plans to ask, primarily, that the matter be remitted to the Court of Appeal for it to be heard all over again there or, alternatively, that the Court of Final Appeal formally acknowledge that the Court of Appeal had unduly expedited her appeal to them, the Court of Appeal.

2.Now, suppose we assume that the Court of Appeal had indeed done just that.  Even so, it is clear that the best way to serve everybody’s legitimate interests now is for both sides, and the Court of Final Appeal itself, to focus, without distraction, on the merits of the question whether the Housing Authority’s sale proposal is lawful or unlawful.  However well-intentioned it may be, the extra appeal would inevitably operate as a distraction.  Leave to bring it is therefore refused.

[The Housing Authority asked

for costs; and Madam Lo asked

that there be no order as to costs.]

3.We order legal aid taxation of Madam Lo’s costs, but make no other order as to costs.

Mr Philip Dykes SC & Mr Hectar Pun (instructed by Messrs Barnes & Daly and assigned by the Director of Legal Aid) for Madam Lo

Mr John Bleach SC (instructed by Messrs Clifford Chance) for the Housing Authority