司法覆核許可申請被拒後是否判予訟費？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEUNG KWOK HUNG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR (HCAL 83/2012) 及 HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR (HCAL 84/2012) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 (Lam J) - 判決日期：2012年9月28日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗司法覆核許可申請的訟費判決。申請人梁國雄（HCAL 83/2012）和何俊仁（HCAL 84/2012）均尋求司法覆核，旨在挑戰行政長官的選舉結果。何俊仁同時提出了選舉呈請（HCAL 85/2012），其理據與司法覆核申請中的挑戰基本相同。兩名申請人均承認需要延長時間才能提出司法覆核申請。法院在2012年7月30日的判決中拒絕了兩宗司法覆核的許可申請，並裁定選舉呈請是質疑選舉結果的主要途徑。本判決處理的是答辯人就成功反對許可申請而提出的訟費申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，在司法覆核許可申請被拒絕後，是否應判予答辯人訟費。答辯人主張，儘管司法覆核許可申請通常不判訟費，但本案存在「不尋常情況」(unusual circumstances)，應判予訟費。申請人則反對判予訟費，理由包括其案件並非毫無勝算、涉及公眾利益，以及判處訟費可能產生「寒蟬效應」(chilling effect)。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析中指出，高等法院條例第21K(3)條規定了司法覆核的許可要求，而《高等法院規則》第53號命令第3條規則第2款允許以單方面申請 (ex parte application) 提出。法官強調，許可要求的目的是篩選出缺乏理據的案件，以避免公共行政受到不必要的干擾。法官認為，當法院需要答辯人提供意見以履行其篩選職能時，或當申請涉及延長時間或臨時濟助時，答辯人出席聆訊是合理且必要的。法官裁定，本案存在不尋常情況，包括申請人何俊仁同時提出司法覆核和選舉呈請，且兩名申請人均就《行政長官選舉條例》第32條和《基本法》第47條提出了缺乏理據的法律論點。此外，挑戰行政長官職位的合法性具有重大影響，答辯人出席聆訊是合理之舉。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，並依據其原則進行分析： - Sky Wide Development v Building Authority [2011] 5 HKLRD 202：確立了司法覆核許可申請中，答辯人成功反對許可後，通常不判予訟費，除非存在不尋常情況的原則。 - Re Ho Mei Ling (No 2) [2012] 1 HKC 400：重申了上述原則。 - Leung Kwok Hung v The President of the Legislative Council HCAL 64 of 2012：提及了「特殊情況」(exceptional cases) 的表述，但法官在本案中更傾向於「不尋常情況」的提法。 - Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung [2008] 1 HKLRD 319：確認許可要求在平衡申請人訴訟權與公共利益之間是必要且合乎比例的。 - Chu Hoi Dick v Secretary for Home Affairs (No 2) [2007] 4 HKC 428：討論了訟費命令的「寒蟬效應」。 - Chan Noi Heung v Chief Executive in Council [2009] 3 HKLRD 362：強調在評估訟費時，應考慮挑戰的理據充分性。 ### 裁決與命令 法院裁定兩名申請人梁國雄和何俊仁須向答辯人支付訟費。何俊仁須支付答辯人一半訟費，而梁國雄亦須支付相同比例的訟費。訟費將按當事人與當事人基準 (party and party basis) 評定，並發出聘用兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了司法覆核許可申請中，答辯人成功反對許可後，通常不判予訟費的「不尋常情況」原則。法官詳細闡述了在何種情況下，答辯人出席許可聆訊是合理且必要的，並強調了法院在篩選職能中的角色。判決明確指出，當申請人的法律論點缺乏理據，且存在其他合適的法律途徑時，即使涉及公眾利益，法院仍可判處訟費，以避免濫用司法程序。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: LEUNG KWOK HUNG v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR (HCAL 83/2012) and HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR (HCAL 84/2012) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Lam J - Date of Judgment: 28 September 2012 ### Factual Background This judgment concerns costs orders for two judicial review leave applications. The applicants, Leung Kwok Hung (HCAL 83/2012) and Ho Chun Yan (HCAL 84/2012), both sought judicial review to challenge the Chief Executive election results. Ho Chun Yan also lodged an election petition (HCAL 85/2012) with substantially similar grounds to his judicial review application. Both applicants acknowledged the need for an extension of time to bring their judicial review applications. The court refused leave for both judicial review applications in its judgment of 30 July 2012, holding that an election petition was the primary avenue for challenging election results. This judgment addresses the respondent's application for costs following the successful resistance of the leave applications. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether costs should be awarded to the putative respondent after successfully resisting leave to apply for judicial review. The respondent argued that "unusual circumstances" existed, justifying a departure from the general rule of no costs. The applicants opposed costs, contending their cases were not hopeless, involved public interest, and that a costs order would have a "chilling effect." ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's analysis highlighted that the leave requirement for judicial review, stipulated by Section 21K(3) of the High Court Ordinance and Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, aims to filter out unmeritorious cases to prevent disruption to public administration. The judge reasoned that it is reasonable and necessary for a respondent to appear when the court requires input to perform its filtering function, or when applications involve extensions of time or interim relief. The judge found unusual circumstances in this case, including Ho Chun Yan's concurrent pursuit of judicial review and an election petition, and the applicants' unmeritorious legal arguments regarding Section 32 of the Chief Executive Election Ordinance and Article 47 of the Basic Law. Furthermore, the challenge to the Chief Executive's office was of immense consequence, making the respondent's appearance reasonable. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited and analyzed the following precedents: - Sky Wide Development v Building Authority [2011] 5 HKLRD 202: Established the principle that costs are generally not awarded to a successful putative respondent in judicial review leave applications unless there are unusual circumstances. - Re Ho Mei Ling (No 2) [2012] 1 HKC 400: Reaffirmed the above principle. - Leung Kwok Hung v The President of the Legislative Council HCAL 64 of 2012: Mentioned the phrase "exceptional cases," but the judge preferred "unusual circumstances" in this case. - Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung [2008] 1 HKLRD 319: Affirmed that the leave requirement strikes a necessary and proportionate balance between an applicant's right to access the court and public interest. - Chu Hoi Dick v Secretary for Home Affairs (No 2) [2007] 4 HKC 428: Discussed the "chilling effect" of costs orders. - Chan Noi Heung v Chief Executive in Council [2009] 3 HKLRD 362: Emphasized the relevance of the merits of a failed challenge when considering costs. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered both applicants, Leung Kwok Hung and Ho Chun Yan, to pay costs to the respondent. Ho Chun Yan was ordered to pay half of the respondent's costs, and Leung Kwok Hung was ordered to pay the same proportion. Costs are to be taxed on a party and party basis, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the "unusual circumstances" principle for awarding costs to a successful putative respondent in judicial review leave applications. The judge elaborated on situations where a respondent's appearance at a leave hearing is reasonable and necessary, emphasizing the court's filtering role. The decision clarifies that even in public interest cases, if an applicant's legal arguments lack merit and alternative legal avenues exist, costs may be awarded to prevent abuse of process. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.