bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

additionalInfoBoxes

quizIds

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Sara Bradford

The government failed to carry out a proper consultation before it struck a New Territories school off the Primary One allocation list, virtually guaranteeing its closure, a judicial review heard yesterday.

The controversial allocation system - which allocates students to specific schools - is under the spotlight as more than 30 schools have been threatened with closure since the policy was introduced.

Yesterday's case was brought by parent Lam Yuet-mei. She  said her  daughter faced great inconvenience in having to travel to a distant school, after the Kin Tak Public School at Chiu Keng village in Sheung Shui was struck off the  allocation list.

In an affidavit read in court, Ms Lam said her daughter used to have a five-minute walk to her old school. Now she had to  wake at 6am to catch a bus to get to her new school, where she had to wait 90 minutes before classes start.

Ms Lam's counsel told the court the outcome of the case would 'decide whether the Kin Tak Public School will survive'.

Kin Tak was one of 31 schools barred from operating classes because it failed to find the minimum 23 pupils for Primary One.

But  Ms Lam's counsel told the court a population shift had caused a decrease in pupil numbers and should not be interpreted to mean that the school failed to attract students because its standards were inferior.

'We say that there was not proper notification or consultation before the decision to remove the school from the school list,' the counsel said.

'We say that such an important decision affecting the future of the school warrants a proper consultation ... before the decision is implemented.'

The school was informed in December  that it would have to cease operating after August, the court was told.

'We say the decision is in breach of a legitimate expectation for students that they could complete their studies at the school,' the counsel said.

He  said when the principal, Fong Hong-kwong,  asked the chief school development officer of Northern District in September 2002 why the school was being closed without consultation, he was told the previous principal was fully aware of  the decision.

But neither Mr Fong nor other staff knew about the details, he said.

The counsel  also pointed to several pieces of correspondence between Mr Fong and the department, in which the department agreed it was preferable to allow existing pupils to  continue at the school.

He said the actual cost of keeping Kin Tak's school doors open until the 2006-2007 academic year was just $2.87 million.

But counsel for the Education and Manpower Bureau, Benjamin Yu  SC, told the court the entire case was founded on an academic argument rather than any procedural impropriety. 'The closure of a school is always a controversial matter,' he said.

He said that in its letter,  the department made no promise to allow the pupils to continue at the school.

The review continues today before Madam Justice Carlye Chu Fun-ling  in the Court of First Instance.



Proper consultation not held on school's closure, review is told