*
Mr Peter Scott, QC, appearing for the Hong Kong Government, roundly trounced Mr Bebchick.
He said that it was not open to either BCAL or Laker to raise objections to the participation of the Hong Kong Government. The preliminary Hearing on 22 October was the time to do this. At that Hearing, the Hong Kong Government had specifically asked to be heard; representatives of BCAL and Laker were present. No objections were raised to the CAA exercising their discretion in favour of the Hong Kong Government. He added that before sending the letter of 5 July, the Hong Kong Government had confirmed with the CAA that it was adequate for the purpose of making representations. Regards the position of the ATLA, he said that the Hong Kong Government had power to appear in front of it and had done so in the Hong Kong Hearing. The Government had put forward its views to the ATLA, as had the other parties to the Hearing. the other parties, the Government was not obliged to accept the decision of the ATLA as the last word.
Like
Mr Colegate rejected Mr Bebchick's application. Speaking as a layman, he said that where a body had an interest in a particular matter, it was monstrous not to hear them and give the other parties concerned the opportunity to examine them. The Hong Kong Government certainly had an interest in this case. He was advised that there was a precedent in English law for exercising discretion in the way in which the CAA had exercised it. He read from the record of the preliminary Hearing and confirmed what Mr Scott had said. He commented finally that any question about the legal relationship between the Hong Kong Government and the ATLA was to be solved elsewhere.
Mr Colegate then confirmed that the CAA exercised their discretion to hear the Hong Kong Government. BCAL were at liberty to go to the Divisional Court if they wished, but he would not order a recess of the Hearing.
I do not know whether BCAL will seek to take legal action. I will let you know if I hear any news about this.
If any reply is to be sent to Mr Bebchick's letter, it seems to me that it would best come from the FCO, to whom he addressed it, since it concerns the constitutional position of the Hong Kong Government. I do not suggest, however, that any reply needs to discuss the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.