HONGYU WANG v. PAUL WAI-CHEONG WONG & 陳家健 OF LANDS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

HCAL 1388/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1388 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 4 August 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review, identifying the intended target of the review as a bilingual cease work order posted by an officer of the District Lands Office, Tai Po, Lands Department at House 6 on Lot No. 427RP in DD 9, Yuen Leng, Tai Po, New Territories (“Premises”).

2.  The Applicant has named that Lands Department officer, together with officers from the Buildings Department, Labour Department, Environmental Protection Department and the Office of the Ombudsman as the five Putative Respondents.  He has named the Landlord of the Premises as the Putative Interested Party.

3.  On the Form 86, though he fails to identify any intended grounds of review, the Applicant seeks the following relief:

1.  The undated cease work order issued by Paul Wai-cheong Wong in early May be dated, edited for consistency between bilingual versions, and registered at The Land Registry.

2.  The illegal structure constructed roughly after mid-March and prior to late July be demolished by Lands Department and Buildings Department, with associated orders and work progresses be registered to The Land Registry, i.e. restoring the [Premises] to their state prior to March.

3.  Re-investigation of occupational safety violations during illegal construction process be carried out by Labour Department.

4.  Re-investigation of environmental hazards during illegal construction process be carried out by Environmental Protection Department.

5.  Investigation of administrative and practices of Lands Department, Buildings Department, Labour Department, and Environmental Protection Department be carried out by Office of The Ombudsman.

4.  Together with the Form 86, the Applicant has filed an affirmation exhibiting (1) a Buildings Department complaint form, (2) a Labour Department complaint form, (3) a Land Register of the Premises, (4) the bilingual cease work order issued, and (5) a USB containing 21 photographs and 6 short video clips, and 14 email trails.

5.  In a subsequent letter sending the additional “grounds” (see below), the Applicant asked me to consider a hearing opportunity, on the basis that there were things to be heard that might be difficult to deal with merely on paper.  Nevertheless, there was no request for an oral hearing made on the Form 86 notice of application, and I have not fixed the matter for hearing, as I consider it to be appropriate to deal with this matter on the papers.

6.  By further affirmation dated 12 August 2026, the Applicant sought to provide other materials, including a report statement made to the Independent Commission against Corruption, a rental contract, and a further copy of the document providing the additional “grounds” previously missing from the Form 86.

7.  Having considered the materials, this is my Decision.

B.  No Merits

8.  It is trite that under the Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2), an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must include on the Form 86, amongst other things, a statement of the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought.  Further, the applicant must provide an affidavit or affirmation verifying the facts relied on.  A failure to comply with the mandatory requirements is fatal to the application.

9.  In the Form 86 for this case, the Applicant failed to identify any public law grounds of review, namely any public law errors said to have been committed by any of the Putative Respondents.  Further, though the affirmation has several exhibits, there is no actual verification of the facts relied on by the Applicant as supporting his claimed relief or the grounds on which it is sought.

10.  However, by latter dated 5 August 2026, post-marked 7 August 2026, and received by the Court on 10 August 2026, stated that he was sorry to have overlooked the part of the Form 86 which required the statement of the grounds on which relief is sought.  He asked to make up the deficit by post and enclosed a separate sheet (which would have been additional to the Form 86 in any event) setting out the grounds on which relief is sought.  Those grounds were also sent again by further letter, and attached to the latest affirmation.  They are as follows:

Grounds on which relief is sought

1.  Around early May after I made a complaint to Office of the Ombudsman, Eric Chui of Buildings Department, who should have referred my complaint from submitted to Buildings Department to Lands Department by late March, suddenly sent many emails shirking responsibilities to Lands Department.

2.  After Paul Wai-cheong Wong of Lands Departments issued the updated cease work order whose bilingual version did not match with each other, and pasted it at No. 6 Yuen Leng Village of Tai Po District on May 8, illegal construction continued until completion with illegally constructed property occupied for domestic use.  Despite my frequent follow-ups in May, June and July, nobody ever enforced this cease work order, and sporadic replies from Paul Wai-cheong Wong and 陳家健 were all dodging responsibilities.

3.  劉浩文 of Office of The Ombudsman’s reply in June apparently copied and pasted a few selected replies from Lands Department, Buildings Department, and even from me.  He clearly never processed my complaint.

4.  Initially in April, 張萬年 of Labour Department replied that he had warned contractors carrying out this illegal construction on occupational safety matters.  But since then several replies from him changed investigation result to there being no violations at all.

5.  顧客服務中心 of Environmental Protection Department never even replied on investigation progress.

11.  Though the additional material may fill the gap on the Form 86 where the grounds on which relief is sought ought to have been set out, none of those matters identify any actual public law grounds of review.

12.  On the materials as a whole, the Applicant at most seems to be expressing complaint or dissatisfaction about the way in which various government departments have dealt with the apparently unauthorised building works performed at the Premises, and the way they have dealt with his own complaints.  However, the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not micro-manage government departmental action.  Nor does it engage in general investigation of administrative practice or malpractice.

13.  Therefore, there is no identification of any public law ground which might be further explained or elucidated at any oral hearing, and I have taken that into account in deciding not to call for a hearing.

14.  Lastly, though it would likely not have been determinative in light of the above, I would note that there was also some doubt about whether the Applicant has sufficient standing.  In the Form 86, the Applicant gives an address in Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon – but the Premises are in the Tai Po area.  Although the Applicant has lodged certain complaints about the works apparently conducted at the Premises, it was not clear from the Form 86 why he is himself affected by the matters of which he has made complaint.  That has now been clarified in the affirmation dated 12 August 2026, which states that he moved away from the vicinity of the Premises as a result of noise pollution.

15.  However, this only emphasises the problems which may arise on an improperly constituted application for leave to apply for judicial review.  Such an application is supposed to be complete once made, in accordance with the mandatory requirements in the rules.  The provision of further materials on a rolling basis – as in this case – is usually inappropriate and unacceptable.

C.  Result

16.  The Applicant’s failure to identify any public law ground of review which is reasonably arguable and with any realistic prospect of success leads inevitably to the dismissal of the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

17.  I so order.

18.  I make no order as to costs.