High Court Justice Michael Hartmann has brought forward Leung's case against the government to mid- November, ruling the originally scheduled hearing in late April would leave lawmakers in limbo for almost an entire legislative year.

Leung is arguing that a rule preventing lawmakers from tabling certain amendments significantly restricts the powers of the legislature.

At the heart of the matter is a debate about the extent of lawmakers' powers in the SAR's "executive-led" system of government, under which the administration primarily initiates legislation.

In explaining his decision to move up the hearing, Hartmann said Wednesday lawmakers may not be able to do their jobs properly as long as a court ruling on whether or not they have the power to introduce certain amendments is left dangling over their heads.

"It could result in a lack of robustness in approaching legislation," Hartmann said, adding that Leung's judicial review "undoubtedly has very important constitutional ramifications."

Theoretically, even a partial victory by Leung may retroactively challenge the legitimacy of any law passed by the Legislative Council that might have included members' rejected amendments. But Hectar Pun Hei, counsel for Leung, said after the hearing Leung has no intention of challenging every law passed since 1997.

Instead, Pun said, Leung is only likely to question the legality of laws passed after his judicial review application earlier this month - which would include laws passed starting next month, as well as the controversial covert surveillance bill passed in the early hours of August 6.

Leung has been a persistent thorn in the side of the government, and in this case the avowed Marxist may see a repeat of last November's events, when Leung defeated the government in another judicial review, also before Hartmann.

In that case, the judgment handed down in February by Hartmann essentially rejected the legality of the government's 43-year-old spying regime, forcing officials to rush a new bill through Legco under the gun of a tight six- month deadline.

During the marathon council meeting to pass the new spying law, Leung filed the current judicial review, protesting the rejection of a handful of amendments to the bill sponsored by pro- democratic lawmakers.

The amendments were ineligible, according to Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, because they would have rung up extra public expenses - a no- no under the legislature's regulations.

Leung contends such a regulation binds legislators' hands and violates provisions in the Basic Law that give lawmakers the power to introduce bills and make amendments.

Originally, clerks for all three parties in the case - Leung, Fan and Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung - had agreed to a late April hearing.

But April, as it turns out, is far too late for Leung, who had originally sought an expedited hearing.

"All legislators would like this matter to be resolved as quickly as possible," Pun said. (Wednesday Pun said the clerk had made a mistake in agreeing to the April hearing.)

But Ada Chung Lai-ling, representing the secretary for justice, said the government has already gone ahead with plans to conduct the hearing next April, enlisting the services of prominent lawyer and former attorney- general Michael Thomas.

It is unclear whether Thomas, who is also the husband of Baroness Lydia Dunn, will be available to take the case in November.

Chung pointed out that legislators had been doing just fine for years without a clear court ruling on whether or not they were allowed to table certain amendments, and said the matter is not urgent enough to overturn a mutual agreement between the parties.

"It's in the interest of justice that both sides have sufficient time to prepare their case," she said, adding that any verdict in the Court of First Instance would likely be appealed anyway.

In the end, Hartmann sided with Pun, ruling that public interest has to come before scheduling arrangements.

"All the time there are bills coming before the legislature, and right now there's a shackle on legislators as to whether or not they can table amendments," Hartmann said. "That may be to the detriment of society as a whole."

The hearing is expected to delve into the question of whether or not the courts have any jurisdiction to rule on this matter, ostensibly a procedural matter of the legislature.

It may be, Hartmann conceded, that "it is not for this court to sit at the shoulder of the [legislative] speaker, interfering with the proper discharge of her duties."

The hearing will be held from November 13 to 15, or November 15 to 18, depending on booking conflicts.