YIU HON YEUNG v. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND ANOTHER

HCAL 2611/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2611 OF 2025

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.  This is an application for interim relief in intended judicial review proceedings, sought by summons dated 1 December 2025.

2.  By the Applicant’s home-made Form 86 dated 24 November 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge (1) the Notice to Quit dated 29 August 2025, issued by the Director of Housing to recover possession of Room 414, Mei Ying House, Shek Kip Mei (Estate) (“Flat”), and (2) the decision of the Appeal Panel (Housing) on 17 September 2025, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal. 

3.  By way of relief, the Form 86 seeks (1) a declaration that the recovery of possession of the Flat by the Director of Housing is “invalid”, (2) a declaration that the decision by the Appeal Panel (Housing) is also “invalid”, (3) an order of disclosure from the Director of Housing of all relevant documents and information, and all information and documents of the Applicant and all related family members, and (4) interim relief in the form of stay of execution of the Notice to Quit until a decision on the judicial review.

4.  The grounds on which that relief is sought are identified as “Procedural unfairness – Legitimate expectation – Maladministration – Proportionality principle – Factual Mistake”.

5.  There is no affidavit or affirmation filed in support of the Form 86, whether to verify the facts in the Form 86 or otherwise.  The Applicant’s affirmation filed in support of the present summons merely identifies the interim relief sought, and exhibits a letter from the Housing Department managing the Flat.  That letter identifies that it is the policy for the Housing Department to take back premises when the named tenant of those premises passes away.  The letter also refers to the Applicant having missed two meetings in which he had been invited to discuss the matter, and offering a last chance for such a meeting on 2 December 2025, though I understand now postponed to this afternoon.

6.  At the hearing today, the Applicant told me, in my summary:

(1)     He and his mother used to live at premises thought unsuitable, so moved to the Flat as temporary accommodation, but have been there for a long time.

(2)     The Housing Department allow them to stay there until a sudden change of mind in July.

(3)     The named tenant of the Flat was his mother, who passed away 4 to 5 months ago (presumably triggering the serving of the Notice to Quit).

(4)     The papers for this application were prepared whilst the Applicant was in hospital, and without access to all the relevant documents.

B.     Analysis

7.  The principles applicable to applications for interim relief in judicial review proceedings are well-settled.  In essence, the principles relating to ordinary civil litigation are applicable, with appropriate differences to reflect the public law element of judicial review.

8.  It is also settled that interim relief will very rarely be granted in judicial review proceedings prior to the grant of leave to apply for judicial review.  Because leave has not yet been granted, if it is ever to be granted, it is therefore appropriate to look at any apparent merit in the application for leave.

9.  Indeed, where ordinarily the ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review would be dealt with on paper, this hearing provided some early opportunity to consider also the grant of leave.

10.  I have already mentioned what has been set out on the Form 86 as to the grounds upon which the relief is sought.  However, with respect, those are merely generic descriptions of some typical headings of public law error.  No attempt is made on the Form 86 or in any supporting affirmation to identify any material facts, or to identify how any of those generically described grounds of public law review might apply to this case.

11.  Indeed, it is trite that under Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2) an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made containing a statement of (amongst other things) the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is sought, as well as an affidavit verifying the facts relied on.  It is not up to the Court to seek to identify from any materials provided to it potential public law grounds of review.

12.  In this case, there are no proper public law grounds identified, and there is no statement of relevant facts let alone any verification of them in an affirmation.

13.  It is, therefore, at least far from clear that leave to apply for judicial review would be granted.

C.     Result

14.  In those circumstances, the Applicant has so far failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground of review with any realistic prospect of success, as might lead to the grant of leave.

15.  It follows that the application for interim relief will be dismissed.

16.  However, in the circumstances outlined above, and where it is not clear to me what happened as regards the Appeal Panel, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is held open, and I shall direct the Director of Housing to provide an Initial Response to assist the Court.  I will also give the Applicant an opportunity to provide a Reply.

17.  I again also note in passing that the Applicant’s meeting with the Housing Department will take place this afternoon, providing the Applicant with the ability to discuss matters.

18.  I make no order as to costs.