Lo is alleging that Chu and Cheng failed to take their oaths properly.

Even though Lo engaged two law firms and made two payment attempts, his legal representatives neglected to help him actually lodge the deposit, known as the security cost, needed to initiate civil action.

The court heard that the fee, which is at most HK$40,000, had still not been paid, four months after the writ was filed on March 4, although the city’s top court had previously ruled that such a payment should be given priority.

Chu’s counsel and Cheng urged Court of First Instance judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung to dismiss Lo’s legal action, arguing that a reasonable amount of time had passed.

The court was told the delay was partly due to the misinformed view of Lo’s previous solicitor, Barry Chin Chi-yung, that Lo would not have to pay until Chu and Cheng asked him to do so.

The judge said he was “surprised” at Chin’s explanation, stressing that the Legislative Council Ordinance stated clearly a legal action would be put to rest unless a deposit was made.

Lo’s barrister, Lawrence Ma Yan-kwok, said his client should not be penalised because of the inexperience of his former solicitors. He also said such a case was rare for general legal practitioners.

But Au pressed Ma: “So you can sit back and pay in two years’ time?”

The judge further asked why he should exercise his discretion in allowing Lo to pay the sum and proceed with the legal bid.

Au, who earlier disqualified the six other lawmakers, said he would announce at a later date whether he would allow Lo to pursue the case.