13 Jun 2025法庭線#6914
Lingnan student Lai Cheuk-yin disqualified from council election, seeks review over lack of opportunity to defend himself
嶺南大學學生會外務副會長賴卓賢，去年 11 月被指以「非官方渠道」宣傳，遭校方選舉主任 DQ 校董會、諮議會、教務會的參選人資格，他早前入稟申請司法覆核，要求推翻選舉主任的決定及選舉結果。案件周五（13 日）於高等法院進行聆訊，法官高浩文聽畢各方陳詞，將於 7 月 31 日或之前頒判決。
申請方質疑，選舉主任發電郵要求與賴會面時，沒提及目的，同日見面即通知他 DQ 決定，令賴沒有機會抗辯，涉程序不公。答辯方反駁，選舉主任於簡介會已向候選人說明規例，又指賴被 DQ 後受訪曾批評校方要求，可見他清楚規則。如選舉主任斷定賴違規仍容許他參選，會對其他候選人不公。
另外，散庭後，賴回應《東周刊》指控他「謀『學聯』物業」的報道，重申自己只是以信托形式為學聯持有物業，並無個人得益。
Lai Cheuk-yin, vice-president (external) of the Lingnan University Students’ Union, was disqualified by the university’s election officer last November from standing for election to the Council, Court and Senate after allegedly promoting his candidacy through “unofficial channels”. He earlier filed for judicial review, seeking to overturn the election officer’s decision and the election results. The case was heard in the High Court on Friday (the 13th). After hearing submissions from all parties, Judge Ko Ho-man said he would hand down his judgment on or before July 31.
The applicant argued that when the election officer emailed Lai asking to meet, the purpose of the meeting was not mentioned. Lai was notified of the disqualification at the meeting on the same day and was given no opportunity to defend himself, amounting to procedural unfairness. The respondents argued that the election officer had explained the regulations to candidates at a briefing, and that Lai’s comments in media interviews after being disqualified, criticising the university’s requirements, showed that he understood the rules. They said it would have been unfair to other candidates if the election officer had found that Lai had breached the rules but still allowed him to stand.
After the hearing, Lai responded to an Eastweek report alleging that he had been “plotting to acquire HKFS property”. He reiterated that he merely held the property for the Hong Kong Federation of Students on trust and had obtained no personal benefit.
17 Mar 2025法庭線#6588
Lingnan Students’ Union vice-president Lai Cheuk-yin disqualified from Council and other elections seeks judicial review; hearing on May 13
嶺南大學學生會外務副會長賴卓賢，去年 11 月被校方選舉主任 DQ 校董會、諮議會、教務會的參選人資格，他上周入稟申請司法覆核，要求推翻選舉主任 DQ 他、校董會指他的投訴不成立的決定，以及選舉結果和相關委任，並下令舉行補選。
司法機構網頁顯示，案件排期 5 月 13 日處理「合併聆訊」（rolled-up hearing），即法庭一併處理覆核許可申請及實質覆核聆訊。入稟狀指，選舉主任指賴以 Instagram、校園海報及接受校外媒體訪問等「非官方渠道」宣傳，而取消其參選資格。
Lai Cheuk-yin, vice-president (external affairs) of the Lingnan University Students’ Union, was disqualified by the university’s election officer last November from standing for election to the Council, Court and Senate. He filed an application for judicial review last week, seeking to overturn the election officer’s decision to disqualify him, the Council’s decision that his complaint was unfounded, as well as the election results and related appointments, and to order a by-election.
The Judiciary website shows that the case is listed for a “rolled-up hearing” on May 13, meaning that the court will deal with the application for leave for judicial review and the substantive judicial review hearing together. The application states that the election officer disqualified Lai on the grounds that he promoted his candidacy through “unofficial channels”, including Instagram, campus posters and interviews with media outside the campus.
20 Dec 2023獨媒#2698
Two CUHK Alumni Disqualified; Judicial Review Says They Were Denied Chance to Respond to Negative Reports, Alumni Council Questions Public Interest
前中大逸夫書院學生會會長謝煒洛及前中大學生會代表會主席孫昊賢，今年初參選校友評議會常務委員，惟遭常委會DQ，二人要求主席楊于銘交代理由不果。二人申請司法覆核，要求法庭宣布DQ決定違憲及程序不當，並予以撤銷。高院今（20日）進行聆訊。代表二人的大律師譚俊傑指，常委會DQ之前並未有披露針對二人的新聞報導和材料，以讓二人能作充份及針對性的回應。中大校友評議會一方則指，他們僅屬大學管治架構裡的一個附屬架構（sub-body），事件與實質公眾利益難言有關係，不屬司法覆核管轄範圍；再者二人並非挑戰DQ的決策基礎，只是挑戰程序上不當，法庭不應基於常委會未有交代理由而撤銷該DQ決定。
Tse Wai Lok, former president of the Shaw College Students’ Union, and former chairman of the CUHK Students’ Union Representative Council Anthony Suen stood for election to the Alumni Council’s Standing Committee early this year, but were disqualified by the Standing Committee. The two asked its chairman Kelvin Yu Ming Yeung to explain the reasons but received no response. They applied for judicial review, asking the court to declare the disqualification decision unconstitutional and procedurally improper, and to quash it. The High Court heard the case today (20th). Barrister Jeffrey Chun Kit Tam, representing the two, said the Standing Committee had not disclosed the news reports and materials concerning them before disqualifying them, so that they could provide full and targeted responses. The CUHK Alumni Council argued that it was merely a sub-body within the university’s governance structure, and that the case could hardly be said to concern a matter of substantial public interest, placing it outside the jurisdiction of judicial review. It further said that the two were not challenging the basis of the disqualification decision, but only the alleged procedural impropriety, and that the court should not quash the decision because the Standing Committee had not given reasons.
6 Nov 2023法庭線#8611
Two Candidates Disqualified from CUHK Alumni Convocation Standing Committee Election Seek Judicial Review
中大校友評議會常委會，今年初被指在沒有提供理由下，取消 3 名中大校友的參選資格。其中兩人上周四（2 日）入稟高等法院提出司法覆核，要求法庭推翻常委會決定，及宣告該決定不合法及程序不當。
入稟狀透露，常委會曾開會討論兩人的參選資格，從新聞報道等得悉他們分別有反修例案底及曾被指發表分裂國家言論，最終沒給予機會二人解釋便作出「DQ」決定。入稟狀指，若他們有機會回應，會表明對案件有悔意，自己深愛香港，不會再採用暴力手段表達個人意見，亦會強調自己無意提倡分裂國家。
The Standing Committee of the CUHK Alumni Convocation was alleged to have cancelled the candidacies of three CUHK alumni early this year without giving reasons. Two of them filed for judicial review at the High Court last Thursday (the 2nd), asking the court to overturn the Standing Committee’s decision and declare it unlawful and procedurally improper.
The writ revealed that the Standing Committee had met to discuss the two candidates’ eligibility. After learning from news reports and other sources that they respectively had criminal records in anti-extradition bill cases and had previously been accused of making statements advocating secession, it ultimately made the “DQ” decision without giving them an opportunity to explain. The writ said that, if given the opportunity to respond, they would state that they regretted the cases, loved Hong Kong, would not use violence again to express their personal views, and had no intention of advocating secession.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
