MA CHUN KIT v. HMM (HK) LTD

HCAL 124/2024

[2024] HKCFI 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 124 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  This application is fundamentally misconceived, and stands to be dismissed.

2.  As can be seen from the heading, in his Form 86 the Applicant has named HMM (HK) Ltd as both the putative respondent and the putative interested party. His description of the subject matter of his intended challenge is put as follows (in English translation):

I wish to apply for judicial review in respect of the judgment of HCA 619/2016.

3.  The Form 86 does not identify any grounds on which the relief is sought. But the Applicant’s affirmation filed in support of the Form 86 states (sic) (in English translation):

I now apply for judicial review in respect of the judgment of HCA 619/2016 on the following grounds:

1)  In respect of HCA 619/2016, the judge gave the judgment based on my conviction in HCC 020/2106 (sic). However, in respect of HCC 020/2016 (sic), an application for appeal was made with the assistance provided by the Legal Aid Department, and solicitors and counsel were appointed to represent me.

2)  I simply did not appear at the hearing for HCA 619/2016. As I was in person, I made the decision of not participating in the hearing.

3)  While the relevant legal proceedings are yet to complete, and the plaintiff asked for realisation of my assets from lawful investment income, it will be extremely unfair to me and against the legal intention.

4.  Neither the Form 86 nor the affirmation identify what is the subject matter of either the criminal proceedings (which should have an HCCC number) and the civil proceedings in HCA 619/2016. But I note that the heading to the affirmation in these proceedings identifies HMM (HK) Ltd as plaintiff and himself as defendant, which may reflect the description of the parties to those civil proceedings.

B.  No Merit

5.  In any event, the present application plainly has no merit.

6.  First, there is no properly identified public law ground of review. The vague reference to a decision being “unfair and against the legal intention” does not properly identify any such ground. That is itself sufficient to be fatal to the application.

7.  Secondly, the intended subject matter of challenge is apparently a decision made by an unidentified judge or judicial officer in civil proceedings. Such decisions are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review, and are ordinarily subject to the alternative potential remedy of an appeal.

8.  In any event, it is difficult to see why the Applicant should be entitled to complain about a decision made at or following the hearing in which he says he decided not to participate.

C.  Result

9.  The application does not raise any reasonably arguable public law ground of review with any reasonable prospect of success. In addition, the decision intended to be challenged is not amenable to judicial review, and there is an alternative remedy.

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