Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001227/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 August 2007 before Tang VP.
Civil procedure – application for extension of time to appeal – delay of 113 days in filing notice of appeal beyond the 28-day limit under Order 59 Rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court – applicant's claim that delay was caused by former solicitors – whether delay by lawyers should be disregarded by analogy with asylum cases under BR (Iran) v SSHD – whether overall justice of the case requires extension of time – relevance of prospects of success – whether applicant had reasonable prospect of success on appeal – judicial review concerning constitutionality of Rule 57(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, made under Article 75 of the Basic Law – rule precludes member from proposing amendment with charging effect without Chief Executive's consent – whether Rule 57(6) contravenes Articles 73(1) and 74 of the Basic Law – principle that no charge on public funds can be incurred except on initiative of the Crown – long-established rule of English constitutional law integral to Hong Kong's pre-handover system modelled on the British Parliamentary system – similar restrictions in other common law jurisdictions – constitutional interpretation following Ng Ka Ling and Chong Fung Yuen – application for extension of time dismissed; appeal bound to fail; order nisi that 2nd Respondent is to have the costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal issues: Whether to grant extension of time to appeal where delay was 113 days · Whether delay caused by lawyers should be disregarded in extension of time applications · Constitutionality of LegCo Rule 57(6) on charging-effect amendments
Outcome: Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed; the underlying judgment of Hartmann J dismissing the judicial review stands
Cited by 1 case