BALLANI BIPIN KISHINCHAND v. YEUNG HIU HUNG AND OTHERS

HCAL 694/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 694 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 8 April 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the 27 March 2026 decision on review (“Impugned Decision”) made by Mr Lawrence Pang, Member of the Lands Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in the application LDPD 181/2026.

2.  The Applicant was the Respondent in LDPD 181/2026. The Form 86 names a Yeung Hiu Hung (“Ms Yeung”) (i.e. the Applicant in LDPD 181/2026) as the Putative Respondent and the Tribunal (Court No 3) and the Bailiff Section (Kwun Tong Law Courts) as the 1^st and 2^nd Putative Interested Parties.

3.  The relief sought by the Applicant is to grant leave to appeal against the Impugned Decision and an interim stay on the proceedings in LDPD 181/2026 until final hearing of the Impugned Decision.

4.  Having considered the materials provided with the application, it seems to me that it can appropriately be dealt with on paper.

5.  This is my Decision.

B.  No Merit

6.  With respect, the application has no merit.

7.  First, though perhaps the result of the Applicant acting in person, naming the counterparty in the underlying Tribunal proceedings as the Putative Respondent to this application tends to suggest the Applicant is seeking to take another step in pursuit of his private law claim, rather than raising a matter of public law suitable for judicial review proceedings. This is also evident from the relief sought of leave to appeal.

8.  Secondly, and as importantly, it is trite that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must identify on the Form 86 the relief sought and the public law grounds which the applicant says could lead to that relief and which are of sufficient merit for the grant of leave.

9.  The Applicant merely attached a copy of the Impugned Decision, a copy of a Notice to Persons in Actual Possession/Occupation, and a one-page document titled “Application for Judicial Review” to his supporting affirmation. In that document, the Applicant merely stated that there are “(1) error of law and facts, (2) failure to make correct and sufficient inquiry, (3) failure to make relevant consideration, (4) improper reliance on irrelevant matters, and (5) procedural unfairness and bias and failure to give adequate reason” (“Applicant’s Allegations”) in the Impugned Decision, without providing any elaboration or particulars, which do not truly identify any specific public law error.

10.  This is a breach of the mandatory requirements in Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court. It is not for the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction to try to identify for an applicant potential grounds of review from attachments to an affirmation (without any substantive content). This alone is fatal to the application. What is stated in the affirmation does not assist the Applicant.

11.  Thirdly, judicial review is a remedy of last resort, and leave to apply for judicial review would unlikely be granted if there is an effective alternative remedy. Here, there would be – or would have been – such an effective alternative remedy, as provided under the Lands Tribunal Ordinance Cap 17. Any party to proceedings before the Tribunal may seek leave appeal to the Court against a judgment, order or decision of the Tribunal on the ground that such judgment, order or decision is erroneous in point of law. By way of legislative decision, no appeal will be entertained if it concerns factual issues only. An appeal is, of course, not the same as a judicial review.

12.  From the available materials, there is no indication on whether the Applicant has filed any application for leave to appeal in accordance with the prescribed procedures. In any event, it seems that the Applicant’s Allegations are mostly questions of law, which could be – or could have been – dealt with by way of seeking leave to appeal. This Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court from another court, nor enforce or stay orders made by other courts.

C. Result

13.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds for review with any realistic prospect of success. Further, the complaint essentially relates to a private law matter in the Tribunal proceedings, where there was a statutory available alternative remedy (whether it was actually pursued or not).

14.  In those circumstances, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

15.  I make no order as to costs.