黃韻芝 v. M/S CHAN & CHAN (JASON KUNG)

HCAL 402/2023

[2023] HKCFI 864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 402 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  The handwritten Form 86 in these proceedings was issued on 16 March 2023. From the application itself, these proceedings seem to me to be fundamentally misconceived.

2.  As a result, the application falls to be dismissed. I shall explain why.

B.  The Application

3.  The identification of a firm of solicitors (and apparently an individual solicitor within that firm) as the proposed respondent to the proceedings would seem to show that the complaint raised is almost certainly not one suitable for the judicial review jurisdiction of the Court. Instead, the complaint appears to be a matter of private law, not public law.

4.  The other aspects of the application show the same thing:

(1)  The supposed identification of the ‘judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought’ in fact identifies some form of claimed relief. It says:

Prohibition Order to freeze the assets of Tsang Choi-ngun (transliteration) and (her) family members, for fear of bankruptcy. Order of returning the property, (namely,) half of the property proceeds and 150 thousand (dollars) in legal cost. [By virtue of the misrepresented proceedings HCMP 223/2020 which the hearing dates were 9/3 (and) 23/3, (the respondent) became the executrix, (the property of) the joint tenancy was sold (and) the proceeds were distributed.]

(2)  The name and description of all interested parties does apparently identify the children and grandchildren of Tsang Choi-ngun, but goes on to say that they

… had been eyeing cover to slay the property of the deceased [address given] which was made jointly owned in the will. Therefore, they rejected the hospitalisation reimbursements of the deceased [the estate] on open bracket there] mother’s behalf but sued me for not distributing the estate. There were records of police reports.

(3)  Perhaps as a continuation, the part of the application which should identify the name and address of the applicant’s solicitors, or if none the applicant’s address for service, says:

In 2009, they embezzled Tsang Choi-ngun’s savings, which was over 800 thousand (dollars), and the fees of the deceased for (illegible) applying outside meals (and) investing in industrial real estate.

5.  These matters will point to the identification of a dispute which might be – and, it seems might already have been – the subject matter of civil proceedings.

6.  Further, in the supporting affirmation, the Applicant makes clear that the dispute or complaints that he or she makes arises out of the dealings with the property or estate of the deceased.

7.  These are not matters suitable for, or amenable to, judicial review.

C.  Result

8.  Therefore, in so far as the proceedings even constitute an application for leave to apply for judicial review, the application is dismissed. That brings these proceedings to an end. But there will be no order as to costs.