Legislator Leung Kwok-hung yesterday failed in his legal action to challenge a certain section of the Legislative Council's Rules of Procedure that concerns the charging effect.

As decided by the Court of First Instance, Rule 57(6) of the Rules of the Procedure is consistent with Article 74 of the Basic Law.

The court also ruled the charging effect should also apply to amendments to bills.

Reacting to the judgment, LegCo President Rita Fan said LegCo would operate as usual but Leung was dissatisfied and said he would consider an appeal.

In delivering his written judgment, Justice Michael Hartmann said Article 74 restricts the power of lawmakers to introduce amendments which have a charging effect, and Rule 57(6) was made on such basis.

In the UK while the Parliament is supreme, in Hong Kong the legislature bows to the supremacy of the Basic Law, he added.

During the hearing stage, counsel Philip Dykes, who acted for Leung, argued that Article 74 does not expressly restrict amendments to bills.

In the end, the judge decided that Rule 57(6) was not inconsistent with Article 74 of the Basic Law.

Although Article 74 is silent on proposed amendments which have the same effect, nothing can be construed as to whether lawmakers have or have not such power to propose amendments which have a charging effect.

Speaking after the judgment, Rita Fan said the Rules of Procedure could continue to operate after the court had declared it was consistent with the Basic Law.

"To me, it is business as usual for the operation of the Legislative Council, for we will continue to do the same thing as what we used to do," she told the media.

Fan, however, criticized Leung, who is entitled to making suggestions to revise the Rules of Procedure as a lawmaker, for not taking the proper channel but choosing to resort to legal action.

As the involved legal cost was borne by taxpayers' money, she would apply for a court order for Leung to bear the entire cost.

Tsang Yok-sing, chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, noted the judgment said lawmakers could not move amendments that carry the charging effect under Rule 57(6).

"The litigation should come to a close now," he said. "And this means the Rules of Procedure we have been using need no changes."

Last year, Fan refused amendments by opposition lawmakers to the bill on interception of communication and covert surveillance, citing charging effect as the reason.

Unhappy with her ruling, Leung initiated a judicial review of her decision to the Court of First Instance and the case was heard in November 2006.