(Hong Kong) The Board considered the Hong Kong Architects’ Disciplinary Board which, by section 5 of the Buildings Ordinance 1955, comprised five members: three architects, the Building Authority or his representative, and ‘a legal adviser’. The appellant contended that any advice on matters of law by the legal adviser should have been given in the presence of the parties; and a failure to follow such a procedure was a breach of common law natural justice.
Held: Since the legal adviser was a full member of the board, if, during the deliberation of the board, he gave legal advice to the other members of the board on matters relating to the proceedings, then he stood in the same position as one of the architect members who gave a view on some matter of architectural opinion. In neither case was the member required to disclose to the parties the advice or opinion he had given in the private deliberations; unless, for example, some new point of law arose during the course of the deliberations, in respect of which it would be procedurally unfair to proceed without giving the parties an opportunity to comment.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, giving the judgment of the Privy Council, emphasised that: ‘At all times, however, the legal adviser occupies the position of being a full member of a body charged with the duty of acting judicially in making due enquiry.’
Judges:
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Citations:
[1967] UKPC 17, [1967] 1 WLR 1155, [1967] 2 All ER 1228
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – The British Medical Association, Regina (on the Application of) v The General Medical Council and Another Admn 4-May-2016
The BMA sought to challenge the validity of the rules governing the procedure of Fitness to Practice panels. In particular the BMA challenged the new absence of a requirement that the panel’s legal advice and assistance be available to the parties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Natural Justice
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445074