陳秀桃 v. 香港特別行政區政府首長

HCAL 593/2023

[2023] HKCFI 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 593 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The Applicant acts in person. On 18 April 2023, she filed a handwritten Form 86 which sets out the following:

(1)  The head of the Hong Kong Government (“香港特別行政區政府首長”) is identified as the putative respondent.

(2)  The target of the application is identified as executive orders made against her (or her connected persons) by the Hong Kong Government in accordance with the request and/or mechanism of the entire HSBC Group – being the company ultimately controlled by the HSBC Holdings PLC in the UK (“有關香港特別行區政府按整體匯豐集團the entire HSBC Group (即以英國匯豐控股有限公司為最終控股公司)之要求及/或機制, 針對申請人(及其關連人仕)而下達之所有行政命令”)

(3)  The relief sought includes the cancellation or termination of executive orders; to inform all related parties that the Applicant is no longer in an employment relationship with the entire HSBC Group and that administrative orders had been cancelled or terminated; to stop the disposal of and to protect the intellectual property of the documents; to stop the disposal of and to protect the personal data of the applicant and her connected persons (解除/終止所有相關之行政命令;通知所有有關方申請人與整體匯豐集團(the entire HSBC Group)已沒有任何僱庸關係及所有行政命令己解除/終止;停止處置﹑並保護知識產權文檔;及停止處置﹑並保護個人資料(及關連人仕)”)

2.  The Applicant has provided numerous affirmations in support of her application. Trying my best to understand what she has said, it seems that she was a former employee of HSBC, but has since become eager to terminate all relationships or ties with the bank. She terminated the employment contract, closed her account with the bank, and transferred her mortgage to another bank. She also once worked at InvestHK, during which term of employment she had written some documents which she claims to be her intellectual property.

3.  But I am afraid that she has failed to identify the executive orders which she said have been made against her by the Hong Kong Government. Nor did she adduce evidence to prove that the orders did exist or explain the factual basis to suggest that such orders (if they exist) were made at the request of HSBC, or somehow made in breach of public law duties owed. It is also unclear to me why the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction should grant relief to protect some documents she may have written.

4.  The Applicant has simply failed to identify any proper target of judicial review or to propose any public intelligible grounds of complaint. The Applicant has not advanced any reasonably arguable ground of review with any reasonable prospect of success.

5.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.