TNAG-2218-FCO40-3186-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 94

22-APR-1991 17:43

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BR

852 840 1976

P.20

1

3

now raising the question of this invalidity. not have to decide that point.

However I wo

·

Final Result

cnis case,

Because I Η ΠΙ not able, on the facts of to apply the de facto juage principle, it follows, and I

invalid in law. I hold, that Mr. Line's appointment is

relief twat is will now hear counsel on the form of appropriate, on

on the question of costs and on any other Matters that arise consequent upon my decision.

the

It only remains

so

for the to thank all counsel for vary helpful suomissions made to me, many of which were usefully

I would also like to thank into writing. reaucea them all for their assiduous industry in providing such interesting

entertaining materials.

and,

JC

times.

(Neil Kaplan)

Juage of the Higa Court

Mr. Denis Chang, 2.C., MI. Johnny Mok & Miss Winnie Tam

for 1st Applicant instructed by Cheng, Yeuny & Co.

MY.

Desiona Keane, Q.C., Mr. Paul Loughran & Mz. Gerard McCoy instructed by K.K. Chu & Partners for 2nd Applicant

Mr. Martin Lee, Q.C.. Mr. Joe Pethes & Mr. Y.L. Wony

instructea by Crown solicitor for the Attorney General and Mr. Peter Line.

Std 8290 698 258

098

SS:21 22-10-1661

TOTAL P.20