曾品熹 v. 香港城市大學

HCAL 1085/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1085 OF 2026

________________

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.  Before me is the notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review filed by the Applicant on 12 June 2026 (the “Form 86”). The subject decisions are two decisions made by the Putative Respondent (“CityU”), one of the universities in Hong Kong. The decisions are:-

(1)  The decision made on 21 January 2026 (the “2026 Termination Decision”) to terminate the Applicant’s study; and

(2)  The decision made on 2 February 2026 (the “2026 Review Decision”) to refuse the Applicant’s request for a review of the 2026 Termination Decision.

II.  BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant was an undergraduate student of CityU for the Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering programme since Semester A 2021/22, which commenced on 30 August 2021.

3.  There is no dispute that the Applicant had to observe or bound by the Academic Regulations (the “AR”) for Undergraduate Degree. At all the material times, the relevant provisions provided:-

“13.1 The University has the right to terminate a student’s study for failure to maintain satisfactory academic progress, as determined by the Dean, or to comply with the policies and procedures of the University.

13.2 The Dean may terminate the study of a student under the following circumstances:

(i) The student’s [Semester GPA] (“SPGA”)] is below 1.70 for any three enrolled semesters; or

(ii) The student’s academic progress is unsatisfactory and is unable to meet the conditions stipulated by the home academic unit after being put on Academic Probation for one semester.

13.3 Irrespective of AR13.2 the Dean my prescribe any other criteria for terminating a student’s study.

…

15.2.6 For formal review of a Dean’s decision, only requests with the following grounds will be considered:

(i) there has been a procedural irregularity affecting the Dean’s decision;

(ii) there exist circumstances that impact the Dean’s decision that the student was unable to bring them to the attention of the Dean prior to its deliberations for valid reasons.

15.2.7 Students may submit a formal request in writing to the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs) within 22 working days of the publication of the Dean’s decision by the University…

15.2.8 The Associate Provost (Academic Affairs) will determine whether or not a prima facie case for review has been established. If, in the view of the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs), there is no prima facie case, then the request will be dismissed and the decision conveyed to the student no later than 10 working days following receipt of the request. The decision of the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs) to dismiss the request for review is final.

15.2.9 If, in the view of the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs), there is a prima facie case, he/she will refer the matter to the Academic Review Committee for consideration. The Committee may interview the student and staff members concerned. If the student does not show up for the interview, the Committee will consider the student’s request for formal review of Dean’s decision on the basis of the information and documents provided by the student and other information available to the Committee. The Committee will record its proceedings and resolutions.

…

15.2.11 If the Academic Review Committee determines that the case is substantiated, the decision will be conveyed to the Dean. The Dean will review the case and decide whether changes to the student’s academic standing or award classification are required. The Dean will report back to the Academic Review Committee any decisions taken on cases referred via this procedure.” (emphasis added)

4.  As mentioned above, the Applicant was an undergraduate student of CityU for the Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering programme since Semester A 2021/2022. The relevant SGPAs of the Applicant are the following:-

(1)  Semester B 2021/22: SPGA 1.50;

(2)  Semester B 2022/23: SPGA 0.80; and

(3)  Semester B 2023/24: SPGA 1.60.

5.  Accordingly, since the Applicant scored less than SPGA 1.70 for three semesters, pursuant to AR13.2(i), by a letter dated 7 June 2024, the Academic Regulations and Records Office (the “ARRO”) informed the Applicant that the Dean had decided to terminate the Applicant’s study. For convenience, this decision shall be referred to as the “2024 Termination Decision”.

6.  On 27 June 2024, pursuant to AR15.2.6 and AR15.2.7 the Applicant requested the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs) to review the 2024 Termination Decision, Professor Wang, who happened also to be the Chairperson of the Academic Review Committee at the time, on the ground of health conditions. On 12 July 2024, the Academic Review Committee considered the matter, and came to the view that the student’s health conditions were not brought to the attention of the Dean for the 2024 Termination Decision and that the health conditions were new evidence the Dean should consider. The Academic Review Committee conveyed their view to the Dean for reconsideration.

7.  By a letter dated 12 July 2024, Professor Wang, in the capacity of the Chairperson of the Academic Review Committee, informed the Applicant of the result of the Academic Review Committee’s consideration of his request.

8.  By a letter dated 31 July 2024, Professor Wang informed the Applicant of the final decision made by the Dean (the “2024 Review Decision”):-

“1) You are allowed to continue with your studies in the Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering programme.

2) Your academic standing will be changed from ‘Academic Termination’ to ‘Academic Probation’ in Semester B 2023/24.

3) Your study load will be limited to 12 credit units in the next enrolled semester.

4) You are required to attain a Semester GPA of 2.00 or above in the next enrolled semester.

I hope you will cherish this opportunity granted by the [Dean] and make academic progress in future semesters.”

9.  The Applicant’s SGPA for Semester A 2025/26 was 1.10.

10.  On 6 January 2026, the Department of Biomedical Engineering sent an email to the Applicant:-

“According to the Academic Regulations, the Dean may terminate the study of a student if his/her SGPA is below 1.70 in three (or more) enrolled semesters (AR31.2i: Student’s SGPA is below 1.70 for any three enrolled semesters.). Before reviewing your case, if you would like to provide any justifications, please send to me by today (6 Jan 2026).”

11.  By a letter dated 21 January 2026, the ARRO informed the Applicant that the Dean had made a decision (that is, the 2026 Termination Decision) to terminate the Applicant’s study in view of his unsatisfactory academic performance.

12.  The Applicant requested the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs) (Professor Wan, also the Chairperson of the Academic Review Committee) to review the 2026 Termination Decision. By the last email, sent on 26 January 2026 at 10:27am, of the series of the emails sent to the Associate Provost (Academic Affairs), the Applicant submitted his “final, structured version of [his] appeal submission” “supersed[ing] all prior versions”.

13.  Having considered the Applicant’s emails and submissions, by a letter dated 2 February 2026, Professor Wan informed the Applicant of the 2026 Review Decision that:-

“… It is considered that –

a) There is no procedural irregularity affecting the Dean’s decision.

b) The grounds presented by you do not constitute extenuating circumstances that impact the Dean’s decision.

In view of the above and by virtue of clause 15.2.8 of the Academic Regulations for Undergraduate Degrees, it is determined that your request for reviewing the Dean’s decision on your academic termination has no prima facie case. Hence, I regret to inform you that your request cannot be acceded to.”

14.  At the request of the Applicant, on 23 February 2026, Professor Wan met the Applicant. The essence of the meeting (the “23 Feb Meeting”) is that:-

(1)  The Applicant took the stance that the 2024 Review Decision nullified the Applicant’s record of the previous semesters and so it was wrong to take the record into account in the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision; and

(2)  Professor Wan took the stance that the 2024 Review Decision did not nullified the Applicant’s record of the previous semesters.

15.  On 12 June 2026, the Applicant filed the Form 86. In the Form 86, the Applicant requested a rolled-up hearing and an interim injunction staying the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision. Given the way the Applicant, acting in person, presented his case in the Form 86, I found the Putative Respondent’s assistance necessary. I thus directed a rolled-up hearing with directions for filing affirmations, and purely for preserving the status for a meaningful hearing, I also granted an interim interim injunction pending the hearing.

III.  THE FORM 86 OUT OF TIME

16.  The 2026 Review Decision was made in February 2026. The Form 86 was filed on 12 June 2026, about 1 month after the expiry of the 3-month limit. The delay is not significant. Therefore, I am prepared to consider the merits of the ground.

IV.  GROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE FORM 86 AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION

17.  The ground of judicial review set out in the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation is, in summary, that upon the 2024 Review Decision, the SGPAs for Semester B 2021/22, Semester B 2022/23 and Semester B 2023/24 considered in the 2024 Termination Decision as reviewed upon the 2024 Review Decision, should not be considered in the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision. The Applicant submits that the 2024 Termination Decision as reviewed upon the 2024 Review Decision was the “final decision of the Dean”, and to count again those SGPAs would be unfair, ultra vires and/or double jeopardy and would not be permitted by the principle of functus officio.

18.  First, the Applicant was bound by the AR. I do not accept any faint suggestion that despite the Applicant’s signature of a declaration in effect to be bound by, among others, the AR did not bind the Applicant. The Applicant, qualified to receive tertiary education, was educated enough to be held to what he signed.

19.  Second, AR13.2(i) clearly is to ensure that the students of CityU would be up to a certain standard before graduation, and it is for the university to set the standard, a matter with which I see no ground here to interfere with.

20.  Third, AR13.2(i) clearly refers to “any three enrolled semesters”. Nothing in the AR would give any impression that “any three enrolled semesters” would mean “any enrolled semester” after a decision not to terminate the student’s study. Such broadened meaning should not be accepted because (1) this is not the natural and ordinary meaning of AR13.2(i) (in particular, the word “any”) in the context and purpose: see Loh Ming Yin v Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority [2020] 6 HKC 565 at §303; (2) such meaning would be illogical because usually, once there were three or more such semesters, the student’s study would be terminated and there would not be any chance to talk about further counting or discounting of the previous semesters; and (3) such meaning would be absurd in a situation where the student, having been spared from termination of study despite three enrolled semesters with SGPAs of less than 1.70, and having only two semesters left before the graduation, could have these remaining semesters with SGPAs of less than 1.70, totalling 5 such semesters in his whole degree, would have no consequence, and this would be absurd in the sense that the purpose of ensuring a certain standard could be defeated. Further, the Applicant’s submissions that the 2024 Review Decision would mean that previous three enrolled semesters were not counted damage the Applicant’s own case – since the previous three enrolled semesters were not counted, and nothing in the 2024 Review Decision said that the previous three enrolled semesters would not be counted or had been spent, given the word “any” in AR13.2(i), the previous uncounted three enrolled semesters were not spent and could be counted later.

21.  Fourth, it was in this context one should understand the 2024 Termination Decision as reviewed upon the 2024 Review Decision. It was clear that the Dean, having considered the matters as conveyed by the Academic Review Committee upon review, exercised his discretion to give “this opportunity” (see §8 above) to the Applicant by allowing the Applicant to continue his study. Textually, when reading the 2024 Review Decision together with AR13.2, this opportunity, in context, clearly means that the Applicant was spared from the consequence of having had SGPAs below 1.70 for three enrolled semesters, but nothing more. Nothing like that the previous SGPAs would not be counted anymore could be read from or into the 2024 Review Decision. If this would mean that the previous SGPAs would not be counted anymore, this would (1) go contrary to the purpose of ensuring that the students would be up to a certain standard before graduation; (2) at odds with the Applicant’s own fair acceptance that the previous semesters were “unused” or “not counted” in the light of the 2024 Review Decision; and (3) not be fair to other students who maintain the records of having less than 3 semesters for which they scored less than 1.70.

22.  Fifth, the Applicant submits that counting the previous three semesters has been unfair to him because (1) the AR did not authorise the Dean to consider the previous semesters; and (2) had he known that the previous semesters could be counted, he would have made some better study plans. In my view:-

(1)  For (1), given my view expressed in §§18-21 above, the AR did authorise the Dean to consider the previous semesters in situations like the present one because the Dean is to consider “any” enrolled semesters but not only semesters after a decision not to terminate the study. I do not agree with the Applicant that such authorisation would be too broad, conferring unlimited power on the Dean and placing students at the mercy of the Dean – AR13.2 specifies under what circumstances a student’s study may be terminated, and thus the Dean’s power to terminate a student’s study is limited, and students are not subject to the Dean’s arbitrary exercise of power.

(2)  For (2), with respect, I fail to understand what better study plan the Applicant would have taken. I would have thought that he would have to do his best to achieve highest scores possible anyway, and I would not understand the Applicant to say that had he known that the previous three enrolled semesters could be counted, he would have studied harder to achieve a better score – to study hard was presumably something any student would have to do in any event. Insofar as there is any suggestion that the Applicant would have chosen some easier courses so that he could score higher, the Applicant cannot make any suggestion (let alone evidence) that the courses he took were so difficult that his classmates taking the same courses mostly scored less than 1.70; rather, the Applicant candidly told the Court that he did not know the others’ scores. Lastly, I fail to understand the Applicant’s submissions that he may have chosen not to take any courses for the semester to avoid having any score so that there would not be any SGPA of less than 1.70 in the first place. Such choice would appear a termination of study.  

23.  In the circumstances, there is neither unfairness nor ultra vires.

24.  The Applicant further submits that the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision is a double jeopardy. In my view, by AR13.2, it is the cumulative effect of any three semesters with SPGAs less than 1.70 that would empower the Dean to terminate the student’s study. Thus, by its very nature, previous semesters would be considered.

25.  The Applicant’s reliance on functus officio is also misplaced – this concept, broadly, means that the decision maker has no jurisdiction anymore after the matter before it has been decided. Here, the fourth semester for which the Applicant scored an SPGA of less than 1.70 was a fresh matter for which CityU had the power to consider, and as explained above, it is the cumulative effect of any three enrolled semesters that would count. The 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision arose from a new, separate matter (namely, the fourth semester SGPA) and has no effect on the 2024 Termination Decision or the 2024 Review Decision. No functus officio is engaged.

26.  In the circumstances, the ground set out in the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation has no merit at all. It has no realistic prospects of success.

V.  OTHER GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

27.  In his written submission, the Applicant raises other grounds of judicial review than those set out in the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation. The grounds not stated in the Form 86 are not permitted except for good reason: see Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association v Director of Civil Aviation, HCAL 51/1999, 28 October 1999 at §9 per Stock J (as he then was). In any events, those grounds are unmeritorious. I shall deal with them briefly.

28.  First, the Applicant submits that the 2026 Termination Decision was made without authority because the 2026 Termination Decision was contained in a letter not issued in the name of the Dean and not signed by the Dean. Such submissions are stated to be rejected. The letter was simply to inform the Applicant of the Dean’s 2026 Termination Decision, and the evidence, which I accept, is that the Dean did make the 2026 Termination Decision. The Applicant must also have accepted this because he went on to request a review of the 2026 Termination Decision. There is no merit in this ground.

29.  Second, the Applicant submits that there is no record of how the decision makers reached the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision and on what provisions the Decisions were made. In other words, the Applicant is effectively suggesting that there is lack of sufficient reason. However:-

(1)  As Mr Anson YY Wong, counsel for the Putative Respondent points out, the Applicant himself admitted that he learned of the basis of the Decisions at the 23 Feb Meeting. I cannot see what prejudice the Applicant has suffered even if (without ruling) the Decisions were rendered at the time without conveying the reasons sufficiently to the Applicant.

(2)  In any event, one has to appreciate the matter in context, the reasons are not required to be detailed and can be brief: see Wong Chau Ming v Secretary for Civil Service [2024] 1 HKLRD 200 at §80 per Coleman J. In context, considering the email sent to the Applicant on 6 January 2026 (quoted in §10 above), it was clear that the 2026 Termination Decision was made on there being three or more semesters for which the Applicant scored SPGAs less than 1.70. It is disingenuous for the Applicant to make submissions that despite the email sent on 6 January 2026, the 2026 Termination Decision could be based on some other reasons.

(3)  For the 2026 Review Decision, considering the limited circumstances for review specified in AR15.2.6, it was clear that the request for review was rejected due to lack of procedural irregularity and lack of circumstances not brought to the attention of the Dean.  

30.  In short, the Applicant, receiving tertiary education, must be able to appreciate the reasons for the Decisions. There is no merit in this ground.

31.  Third, the Applicant submits that he had legitimate expectation that the previous semesters should not be counted, and/or that he had no fair notice that the previous semesters would be counted. However, given the meaning of AR13.2 and the 2024 Termination Decision as reviewed upon the 2024 Review Decision, I fail to see why the Applicant would have any such legitimate expectation and why he had no fair notice as alleged. At most, it would be the Applicant’s own subjective wishful thinking that the previous semesters would not be counted.

32.  Fourth, the Applicant submits that he also had legitimate expectation that the Academic Review Committee was considering his request for review under AR15.2.9 and he should have been afforded a chance to be heard and entitled to know the Committee’s opinion thereunder, because by an email sent to the Applicant, Professor Wan stated that “Your case is currently under review by the University’s Academic Review Committee”. However, it was not mandatory that the Academic Review Committee would interview the Applicant, and there was no requirement that the Academic Review Committee’s opinion would be conveyed to the Applicant. In any event, it was not said that the Academic Review Committee was considering the matter under AR15.2.9. Instead, Professor Wan may just be saying that it was considering the matter with the assistance of the Academic Review Committee, and at the end of the day, he himself would determine whether there was a prima facie case to refer to the Academic Review Committee. There is, in my view, no clear and unequivocal representation that the matter would be referred to the Academic Review Committee under AR15.2.9. Further and in any event, the Applicant has not pointed out what prejudice (for example, his study would be continued despite the fourth semester for which he scored an SGPA of less than 1.70) he has suffered. There is no merit in this ground.

33.  Fifth, the Applicant submits that AR15.2.15 has not been complied with. In compliance, the Applicant submits, the decision thereunder should be conveyed to the Applicant. However, AR15.2.15 has no application in the present case because it concerns an appeal against the Academic Review Committee’s decision made upon the Associate Provost’s referral. In the present case, there was no such referral in the first place, let alone any decision of the Academic Review Committee an appeal could be lodged against.

34.  Sixth, the Applicant submits that the system under the AR is biased because under AR15.2.11, the Academic Review Committee would refer the matter back to the Dean who has made the decision to terminate the student’s study. However, in the present case, the Applicant is not alleging that the 2026 Termination Decision and/or the 2026 Review Decision was biased as a result of the system. He cannot, given that Professor Wan did not refer the matter to the Academic Review Committee and thus the matter was not, so to speak, referred back to the Dean. Further, I see good reason for referral of the matter back to the Dean – academic independence within each Faculty or Department. In any event, it is an internal matter of the university with which the Court is slow to interfere. In the present case, in the absence of any actual bias and in any event, AR13.2 is clear in its effect, I see no merits in this bias ground raised by the Applicant.

VI.  CONCLUSION

35.  In the premises, I refuse to grant leave out of time for leave to apply for judicial review, and dismiss the Form 86. It also follows that I refuse to continue and grant any stay of the 2026 Termination Decision and the 2026 Review Decision.

36.  For costs, as I explained in 林進傑 對 行政上訴委員會[2025] HKCFI 5525 at §46, the ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review always takes the risk that the putative respondent would be called upon by the Court for assistance and that the ex parte applicant would be ordered to pay the costs of the putative respondent. It is all the more so in the present case, where, as mentioned in §15 above, the Applicant himself sought a rolled-up hearing in the Form 86. While the Applicant is still a student, I see no reason as a matter of law that the Putative Respondent would have to bear the costs when the Form 86 is dismissed. So, I order that the Applicant shall pay the Putative Respondent costs, summarily assessed at HK$160,000. Whether the Putative Respondent, being a university which is usually expected to give opportunity to its students, would like to enforce the costs order against its former student, and if so, how to enforce the costs order, are matters for the Putative Respondent to decide.

37.  It remains for me to thank Mr Wong for his assistance. I should also remark that in his valiant efforts, the Applicant has made every possible submission (some even being remotely meritorious) to pursue his application in order to salvage his study at CityU. This shows that he does care about his study. He deserves a chance from society.