林崇發 v. 何紹銘

HCAL 2450/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2450 OF 2025

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is misconceived, and it falls to be dismissed.

2.  By Form 86 dated 3 November 2025, and an affirmation in support of the same date, the Applicant complains about the behaviour of a former work colleague, Ho Siu-ming (“Ho”). In short, the Applicant lent Ho money, but Ho never repaid it. The Applicant says that Ho then returned to the Mainland, and changed his phone number and deleted his Whatsapp account so that the Applicant was unable to contact him.

3.  When the Applicant commenced a Small Claims Tribunal claim against Ho, he appeared at the workplace asking for the claim to be terminated, because he would repay the money soon. The claim was discontinued by the Applicant, but there was no word from Ho afterwards. Therefore, the Applicant filed the claim again and – because Ho failed to defend the claim – obtained a Small Claims Tribunal judgment against Ho for the sum of $15,000 plus $50 costs.

4.  The Applicant thinks that Ho is a fraudster, and is in effect living in the Mainland – despite apparently having a public rental flat in Tung Wui Estate – to protect himself from having to repay the Applicant or satisfy the judgment.

5.  By way of relief (albeit set out in the box on the Form 86 where there should have been a description of the judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought), the Applicant expresses the hope that the Court will amend the charge against Ho to one of fraud to uphold justice. However, the grounds on which that relief is sought are not identified in the Form 86.

B.  Merits

6.  It is trite that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must identify the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought. Relevant grounds would be any alleged public law errors or wrongs which are said to have led to the impugned judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought. Further, an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the impugned decision.

7.  However, in this case, first there is no clear impugned decision. Though the Applicant suggests amending a charge against Ho to one of fraud, there is no indication that there has been a decision to lay any other charge against him. In any event, the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not lay or amend criminal charges.

8.  Secondly, the Applicant has pursued an alternative remedy in the form of the claim made in the Small Claims Tribunal. There is no apparent challenge to the judgment given by the Small Claims Tribunal, which was in favour of the Applicant, and where that tribunal of course has no criminal jurisdiction. In any event, the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not amend orders made by that tribunal.

9.  Thirdly, the Small Claims Tribunal judgment was obtained on 20 October 2023, and this application for leave to apply for judicial review has been brought just over two years later. The application is therefore well out of time, and no reason to extend time has been advanced.

10.  Fourthly, and most importantly, there is simply no public law ground of review identified.

11.  Overall, with respect, I think the Applicant has mistaken the nature of judicial review proceedings, and mistaken this Court as a place to which the applicant can look for greater satisfaction of the complaint.

C.  Result

12.  In the circumstances outlined above, there is no reasonably arguable basis upon which to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

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