WAN KIN SHING v. KING POLICY DEVELOPMENT LTD

HCAL 1657/2020

[2020] HKCFI 2142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1657 OF 2020

________________________

________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 29 March 2018, Chung J gave judgment in favour of King Policy Development Limited (“King Policy”) against the Applicant in a civil action (HCA 696/2015), and ordered the Applicant to pay King Policy’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

2.  On 5 June 2020, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the judgment of Chung J with costs (CACV 107/2018).

3.  On 12 June 2020, King Policy issued a statutory demand on the Applicant in respect of the taxed costs and interests under the judgment of Chung J (in the total amount of HK$1,474,062.58 up to 12 June 2020 plus daily interest of HK$274.21 thereafter until repayment).

4.  On 26 June 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

5.  On 29 June 2020, the Applicant applied to set aside the statutory demand.

6.  On 7 August 2020, Au-Yeung J dismissed the Applicant’s application to set aside the statutory demand (HCSD 32/2020).

7.  The Applicant now applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the order of Au-Yeung J in HCSD 32/2020.

8.  It is well-established that judicial review does not lie against a judgment or order of a High Court judge made in judicial proceedings.  The intended application for judicial review of the order of Au-Yeung J is misconceived.  In his Form 86, the Applicant also refers to the judgment of Chung J in HCA 695/2015.  That judgment is likewise not amenable to judicial review.

9.  Further, the subject decision(s) sought to be challenged in the intended application for judicial review was/were not made by King Policy.  There is no proper basis to join King Policy as the putative respondent for the purpose of the present application.

10.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review in the present case is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed.