CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DRAGON GUARD SECURITY LTD

HCAL 1873/2024

[2024] HKCFI 2989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1873 OF 2024

________________________

________________

AND

HCAL 1874/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1874 OF 2024

________________________

________________

(Heard together)

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  These two applications – which can be dealt with together because of the overlapping between them – were both commenced by Form 86 dated 18 October 2024.

2.  In HCAL 1873/2024, the putative respondent is named as Dragon Guard Security Ltd, a security company operating in Hong Kong. The putative interested party is named as the MTR Corporation Ltd. In HCAL 1874/2024, the same parties are named with their roles as putative respondent and interested party respectively reversed. It is also clear from the complaint made in the Forms 86 that the two applications right out of the essentially the same matter.

B.  HCAL 1874/2024

3.  In those circumstances, it may not be surprising that on 1 November 2024 the Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal for HCAL 1874/2024 (though that document seems to have been filed only by way of an attachment to an affirmation filed in the other proceedings). This Notice of Withdrawal exists notwithstanding that on the previous day, 31 October 2024, the Applicant had filed a supplementary affirmation in the proceedings seeking interim relief.

4.  In any event, I permit the withdrawal of the application in HCAL 1874/2024. I would in any event have been satisfied that the application failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review. I make no order as to costs.

C.  HCAL 1873/2024

5.  As to the remaining application in HCAL 1873/2024, the Form 86 identifies the ‘judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought’ as follows (sic):

The decision and actions of Dragon Guard Security Ltd to conduct unauthorised surveillance, and process personal data without proper consent or legal basis, as part of their contract with MTR Corporation Limited, and is unlawfully confined the applicant and coerce the applicant to sign to waive the right to the payment of lieu, and there is pending wage arrears. (DCCJ 1998/2024)

6.  An amendment to the Form 86 added, after the reference to the District Court action, that:

their legal representative served the list of Authority just 15 mins before the hearing.

7.  The intended grounds of review are set out in the Applicant’s supporting affirmation as follows (sic):

i)  Discovered unauthorised surveillance conducted by Dragon Guard on MTR premises.

ii)  Subject to unlawful confinement, the conference room exit was barred by unknown personnel, and coerced to sign a document to waive the right to payment of lieu, and wage arrears issue is pending.

iii)  Constructive dismissal due to intolerable working conditions, supported by environmental evidence.

iv)  New evidence revealed MTR as data user, and dragon guard as data processor.

8.  The Applicant filed two further affirmations. The first is dated 31 October 2024 was supposedly withdrawn by the second dated 1 November 2024. By that affirmation, the Applicant seeks interim relief in the form of a stay of execution of the costs order made against her in the District Court action pending determination of this judicial review application. Exhibited to the first affirmation was a draft order identifying that the Applicant’s claim in the District Court action was struck out, and the entire claim dismissed, with costs payable by the Applicant. Exhibited to the second affirmation is the statutory demand seeking payment of the sum of HK$95,322.50, comprising the HK$95,000 costs ordered on the dismissal of the District Court action, with HK$322.50 accrued interest.

9.  From these materials, it is plain that the Applicant’s complaint relates to issues arising out of her employment by the putative respondent, and her apparent dissatisfaction with the striking out of her claim against the putative respondent in the District Court action, and the consequential costs order made against her.

10.  In so far as there is a complaint arising out of her employment, those are private law matters, not amenable to judicial review. In so far as there is a complaint arising out of the District Court action, that is also not amenable to judicial review, where this Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not act in any appellate capacity.

11.  In short, the application is misconceived, and the Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error giving rise to any ground for judicial review with any reasonable prospect of success.

12.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is, therefore, dismissed. I make no order as to costs.