(Hong Kong) The plaintiffs sought a declaration that it would not be lawful for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to pass a particular Bill, together with an injunction to restrain the members of the council from passing it.
Held: The Board had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, but, by a majority, the action should be dismissed summarily as disclosing no cause of action. Passing a Bill which, on enactment, was repugnant to an Imperial Act of Parliament might by a waste of time for the legislators, but it was not in itself unlawful. The conduct of the Legislative Council could not affect the legal rights of anyone, because the Ordinance would be void and inoperative. ‘Conduct however much it lies outside the legal power of the actor does not give rise to any cause of action on the part of any person unless it infringes or threatens to infringe that person’s legal rights. Such an infringement can only occur when steps are taken to enforce the void Ordinance. It is committed not by the makers of the Ordinance but by those who take steps to enforce it after it has been made.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Citations:
[1970] AC 1136, [1970] UKPC 12
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church PC 26-Jul-2000
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187513
