Court of Appeal hears case over judicial review judgment regarding development at former Fanling Golf Course

The ongoing legal battle over the development of public housing on part of the Fanling Golf Course took center stage in the Court of Appeal today.

The dispute stems from the government's 2023 acquisition of 32 hectares of land, with plans to build public housing on 9.5 hectares. The Hong Kong Golf Club previously challenged the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the project, claiming it was flawed, underestimated environmental damage, and failed to include proper public consultation. The court sided with the club, overturning the Environmental Protection Department's (EPD) conditional approval of the EIA and ordering further consultation.

The Director of Environmental Protection, represented by Senior Counsel Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, appealed the case.

At the latest hearing, the EPD contended it had no authority to approve EIA reports following a recent legal amendment and argued its earlier decision was an overreach, effectively making the case academic.

Yuen noted that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance in June 2023 meant the Fanling project was no longer classified as a designated project under the Ordinance, stripping the EPD of approval authority. Yuen maintained that the department's previous approval was an overreach and that the court’s ruling would not affect other projects.

However, the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal Susan Kwan Shuk-hing strongly rebuked the argument, questioning the necessity of the lengthy legal proceedings if the case truly had no legal consequence.

Kwan questioned why extensive court resources had been spent on the case if it truly lacked legal weight. Yuen replied that the EIA report and the judgment should only serve as reference materials, and suggested the original judicial review should have been dismissed.

Senior Counsel Yu Yuk-hoi, representing the Golf Club, questioned why the EPD had not raised concerns about its authority at the original trial or in the Notice of Appeal, if it truly believed the judicial review was merely academic.

Yu also highlighted that despite the legal amendments, the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CED) had continued to advance the project, with no signs that it had been halted.

The appeal case is expected to last for three days.