郭卓堅 v. 特首林鄭月娥女士及另一人

HCAL 899/2020

[2020] HKCFI 923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 899 OF 2020

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  In this application for judicial review, the Applicant seeks a declaration from the court that the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice have failed to honour an alleged promise or undertaking that the Government would not claim or seek to recover costs in legal proceedings against “poor persons”, and that they have acted in breach of the Basic Law.

2.  On 6 May 2020, the Secretary for Justice, as creditor, filed a bankruptcy petition against the Applicant in respect of outstanding costs in the total amount of HK$1,560,363.94 together with interest thereon arising out of various legal actions previously brought by the Applicant against the Government and/or other public officers (HCB 1613/2020).  The Applicant alleges that in June 2018, the Chief Executive told the Legislative Council, in answer to a question raised by a member of the Legislative Council, that for some poor persons who owed the Government money but who were unable to repay their debts, the Government would not force them to make repayment so as to spare them from being under financial difficulty.

3.  The court has examined the documents submitted by the Applicant but does not see that there is any evidence that they Chief Executive has given any clear or unequivocal promise or undertaking applicable to the Applicant’s circumstances as alleged.  In any event, even if some such promise or undertaking was given by the Chief Executive, the Applicant can raise it before the Bankruptcy Court.  Whether it can amount to a valid defence to the bankruptcy petition is a matter to be determined by the Bankruptcy Court.  To proceed by way of judicial review in order to circumvent the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction over the bankruptcy petition against the Applicant plainly constitutes an abuse of the court’s jurisdiction in judicial review.

4.  There is also no basis whatsoever, from the materials submitted by the Applicant, to support the allegation that the Chief Executive or Secretary for Justice have acted contrary to the Basic Law.

5.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.