In A v B [2025] HKCA 965, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain a school from acting on a decision to expel a student (“X”).
This case illustrates the doubly high thresholds for:
- Challenging a school disciplinary council’s decision; and
- Appealing against a judge’s discretionary refusal to grant interlocutory relief.
Challenge to School Disciplinary Council’s Decision
The plaintiff, X’s father, challenged the school’s decision to expel her following an incident involving cannabis intoxication of another student (“Y”) during a study tour.
The Court of First Instance granted an interim-interim injunction allowing X to complete the academic year, but ultimately dismissed the injunction application, finding:
- There was no high degree of assurance that the council’s decision fell outside the range of reasonableness or was procedurally unfair.
- The balance of convenience did not favour reinstatement, given (1) the likelihood the school would reach the same decision upon reconsideration, (2) breakdown of trust and confidence, and (3) the school’s view that reinstatement was not in its interests.
Expedited Application to the Court of Appeal
After an expedited rolled-up hearing, the plaintiff’s renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held that the application could be dismissed on the basis that the proposed grounds of appeal were new grounds which had not been canvassed before the judge. Change of legal representation is not generally a good enough reason for changing the grounds of appeal.
- In any event, as an exception, the Court considered the new proposed grounds which werenarrowly focused, and rejected them on the merits.
- The first ground of appeal contended that the judge misdirected himself in finding that the disciplinary council “effectively came to a finding” when the expulsion notice only expressed “suspicion”. The Court rejected this, holding that when viewed in context, the notice connoted that the school considered the “suspicion” sufficiently substantiated to justify their decision.
- The second ground of appeal alleged the judge failed to consider that Y had decided to withdraw from the school. The Court also rejected this, applying Harbour Front Ltd v Money Facts Ltd[2019] HKCA 916 and noting that a judge is not required to address every point made, particularly in an oral judgment delivered with considerations of urgency.
The full judgment is available at https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=173868&currpage=T
Jiang Zixin, instructed by Lee Law Firm, acted for the Plaintiff (Applicant) on appeal; Clara Wong appeared at first instance.
Jenkin Suen SC and Charlie Liu, instructed by King & Wood Mallesons, acted for the Defendant (Respondent) on appeal; Terrence Tai and Charlie Liu appeared at first instance.
