LAU CHO WING v. BAILIFF SECTION & CHIEF BAILIFF (OPERATIONS) CHEUNG KA HO

HCAL 627/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 627 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

A. Introduction

1.  In his previous application made in HCAL 2283/2023, the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge a Writ of Possession dated 3 August 2023, issued in HCA 2769/2017 following an order made in those proceedings on 29 July 2022.  The Applicant was the 1^st defendant to those proceedings.  He also sought to challenge an underlying Notice to Occupier to Quit relating to the subject premises at Flat B, 3/F, 81 Broadway, Mei Foo Sun Chuen, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Property”).  The thrust of the application lay in the Applicant’s claim that the Writ of Possession and the Notice to Occupier to Quit were invalid.  The clear intention was to thwart the enforcement process in relation to the Property.

2.  In my Decision [2024] HKCFI 574, I dismissed the application as being without merit. 

3.  Now, by a further Form 86 the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review of what is said to be a decision made by the Bailiff’s Office of the High Court in a letter dated 20 February 2025.  (Incidentally, the named respondent Mr Cheung is not the Chief Bailiff, though it does not directly affect the consideration of this case, but a Senior Bailiff performing Special Duties.)  The relief sought includes that the Applicant be allowed to inspect and photocopy the documents filed in the Bailiff’s Office in relation to HCA 2286/2007 and HCA 2769/2017.  It is, therefore, clear that this new application arises out of the same broad subject matter as the previous meritless application. 

4.  Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that this application can appropriately be dealt with on the papers.  This is my Decision. 

B.  Background

5.  The Applicant wrote to the Bailiff’s Office on 8 January 2025 to request access to the documents filed in relation to the HCA proceedings.  He sought inspection of the documents filed with the Bailiff in respect of the procedure and process of execution including the Court Writ (perhaps meaning the Writ of Possession), list of articles, photographs etc. 

6.  Though its receipt by the Applicant was perhaps delayed, the Bailiff’s Office replied by letter dated 24 January 2025 saying that the Court Writ, list of articles and a disc of photographs were available for collection at the total charge of $68. 

7.  By further letter dated 20 February 2025, the Bailiff’s Office noted that the Applicant had attended at the office on 3 February 2025, stating that he did not need copies of those things, but wrote to the office on the same day requesting access to the entire case file of documents filed.  The letter concluded by asking the Applicant to explain the legal basis of his request for access to the Bailiff’s case files and documents. 

8.  Rather than respond to that request, the Applicant has chosen to commence these proceedings.  In doing so, he has stated his belief that inspection of case documents filed with the Bailiff’s Office is a constitutional right conferred on the parties to a case to understand the procedures and details of the enforcement of the law in the case. However, he has failed to identify any basis for that claimed constitutional right.  Instead, he has sought judicial review on “whether it is unconstitutional for the Bailiff’s Office of the Judiciary to refuse to allow the parties concerned to inspect and make photocopies of the case documents filed in the Bailiff’s Office”. 

9.  As already indicated, the relief he seeks is to be allowed to inspect and photocopy the documents. 

10.  In the meantime, it is unclear from the materials provided by the Applicant as to whether he has or has not complied with the requirement that he give up possession of the Premises. 

C.  No Merits

11.  There is no merit in this application. 

12.  First, it is clear from the correspondence that no ‘decision’ amenable to any challenge has actually been made.  Rather, after the Bailiff’s Office had made available to the Applicant the specific documents requested by him, and following the Applicant’s own decision not to pick up those documents but to seek something else, the Bailiff’s Office simply asked him to explain the legal basis underpinning the request for access.  No refusal of access has been made. 

13.  Secondly, though the Applicant has stated a claimed constitutional right, he has failed to identify any basis for it, and instead has posed the open question as to whether the Bailiff’s Office has acted in an unconstitutional manner.  The Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not answer hypothetical questions.  It is also a mandatory requirement under Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3 that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review properly identify the public law grounds relied upon in support of the relief sought. 

14.  Thirdly, having failed in his previous attempts to interfere with the enforcement process in relation to the Property, the Applicant seems now to be engaged in a ‘fishing expedition’, apparently in the hope of turning up some further basis for complaint about the possession and enforcement proceedings being taken against him in other High Court litigation.  The Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not act in support of such fishing expeditions.  I would also state that I do not accept the Applicant’s suggestion that he does not understand the procedures and details of the enforcement of the law in the case.

15.  Fourthly, in the circumstances as appear from the materials provided by the Applicant, it is difficult to think that there would be any circumstances where the Court would in any event exercise its discretion to grant him any relief (even if some public law basis for doing so were to be identified and established).

D.  Result

16.  Therefore, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.  I make no order as to costs.