HO KING KWAN

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal against an order of Mayo, J. refusing leave to apply for an order of certiorari. The matter arises in this way. A closure order was made by a District Judge under s. 27 of the Buildings Ordinance, the conditions there set out having been satisfied. It was suggested in the Statement filed pursuant to 0.53 r.3(2)(h) of the Rules of the Supreme Court that the order of the District Judge was wrong because "it was against public policy and an abuse of power for the Building Development Department to apply for the said Closure Order". That in itself, I think, implies that the complaint was really not against the District Judge but against the Building Authority. Mayo, J. was satisfied that there was no ground for an order of certiorari against the District Judge and for my part I think that he was entirely right. The proper way in which to attack the order of the Building Authority was by appeal, but it was thought at the time that order was made that no appeal lay. That view has now been held, in a decision of this court, to be wrong, but time for appeal has expired. However, that does not alter the fact that the District Judge is not shown to have done anything which was wrong and therefore Mayo, J. was justified in refusing leave to apply.

2. I, therefore, would dismiss this appeal.

Fuad, J.A.:

3. I agree. In my judgment the application for judicial review before Mayo, J. was wholly misconceived and rightly dismissed, and I also think that the appeal before us is misconceived and must be dismissed. Whether or not any fresh proceedings the Appellant may be advised to bring have any chance of success I do not know.

Kempster, J.A :

4. I, too, agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by my Lords.

7th February 1986