Read the full judgment text of HCAL 79/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 6 August 2009 before A Cheung J.
Constitutional and administrative law – judicial review – Basic Law interpretation – extrinsic materials – relevance and admissibility – Legislative Council – power to summon witnesses – select committee – panel – sub-committee – case management – leave to file further evidence – late filing of affidavit – timetable adjustments – bundles of documents – written submissions – exclusion of submission paragraphs from affirmation evidence – costs in the cause – certificate for two counsel – public interest – exceptional importance of case. The applicants brought a judicial review concerning the Legislative Council's power to summons witnesses, raising issues of construction of the Basic Law. At a case management hearing before A Cheung J, the 2nd Respondent (Mr Lee) sought leave to file extrinsic materials he and his team had obtained, while other respondents applied to put in a second affidavit of Ms Pauline Ng regarding prior occasions on which the Legislative Council's summons power had been exercised. The Court emphasised the paramount importance of placing all relevant extrinsic materials before it when construing provisions of the Basic Law, citing principles from Court of Final Appeal decisions including Ng Kar Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 and Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211. Leave was granted to all parties to file further relevant extrinsic materials by 11 am on 10 August 2009, with any disputes as to relevance or admissibility to be debated at the substantive hearing. Leave to file Ms Pauline Ng's second affidavit late was granted on the basis of consensus that it was relevant to four specific matters, including confirmation that the summons power had been exercised before both before and after the Basic Law's promulgation to summon witnesses to select committees, panels, and sub-committees, and that both civil servants and non-civil servants had been so summoned without incident. The Court made timetable adjustments: applicants to lodge bundles by 10 am on 11 August, applicants' written submissions by 10 am on 12 August, and respondents' and interested party's submissions by 4 pm on 14 August, with the substantive hearing to commence on 17 August 2009. Mr Leung was granted leave to file his affirmation, with paragraphs 35 and 36 excluded as they constituted matters of submission rather than evidence. The Court ordered costs in the cause, taking a global view that the issues were case management matters, and granted a certificate for two counsel in light of the peculiar circumstances, exceptional importance, and public interest of the case.
Legal issues: Admissibility and relevance of extrinsic materials in Basic Law interpretation · Late filing of Ms Pauline Ng's second affidavit · Adjustments to timetable for bundles and submissions · Exclusion of paragraphs 35 and 36 of Mr Leung's affirmation · Costs and certificate for two counsel
Outcome: Case management directions made; leave granted to file further evidence; costs in the cause; certificate for two counsel granted.
Cites 1 case