Hong Kong’s appellate court has dismissed the government’s appeal over the Fanling Golf Course judicial review, upholding a lower court ruling that environmental authorities failed to conduct proper public consultation. The Environmental Protection Department and the Civil Engineering and Development Department must pay legal costs.
Appellate Court Rejects Environmental Protection Department Appeal
The legal battle surrounding the partial reclamation of the Fanling Golf Course took a definitive turn when the High Court’s Court of Appeal handed down its ruling, rejecting an appeal brought by the Environmental Protection Department. The government’s attempt to overturn a previous defeat failed across multiple procedural grounds, leaving both the environmental agency and the Civil Engineering and Development Department responsible for the litigation costs.
The underlying dispute stems from government plans to reclaim 32 hectares of the Fanling Golf Course, a move initially set in motion in 2023. Officials earmarked 9.5 hectares of that land to build public housing. In response, the Hong Kong Golf Club filed for judicial review in July of that year, challenging the approval of the environmental impact assessment report.
Flawed Public Consultation and Omitted Assessment Data
At the heart of the appellate court’s decision was a finding of procedural unfairness in how the public consultation was handled. The court agreed with the original judge’s assessment that crucial supplementary material—including a water resources impact assessment—should have been integrated into the assessment report so the public could properly examine it.
Because those documents were omitted from public view and no further consultation followed, the appellate judges concluded the process was procedurally unfair. Furthermore, the court determined that the Director of Environmental Protection acted unreasonably under Wednesbury unreasonable
legal standards by approving the report without considering the golf club’s formal responses to those supplemental filings.
Legal Representation and Statutory Authority Limits
The appellate proceedings featured prominent legal counsel representing the opposing sides. Senior Counsel Rimsky Yuen represented the appellant environmental authorities, while Senior Counsel Benjamin Yu argued on behalf of the Hong Kong Golf Club. The Civil Engineering and Development Department participated as an interested party, represented by Senior Counsel Ambrose Ho.
Beyond the consultation failures, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the environmental chief imposed approval conditions that exceeded statutory authority. The court noted that the disputed environmental impact assessment report also fell short of technical memorandum and study brief requirements across multiple categories, including ancient trees, cultural heritage, bats, and waste disposal.
По теме
