WONG YI CHING v. APPEAL PANEL OF HONG KONG HOUSING DEPARTMENT

HCAL 2605/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2605 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 24 December 2024, the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review, naming the Appeal Panel of the Housing Department as both the Putative Respondent and the Putative Interested Party, but merely identifying the decision to be challenged as (original in Chinese):

「我不滿意不同意決定」

“I am not happy with the decision and disagree with it”

2.  The Applicant failed to identify any intended grounds of review, but sought the following relief (original in Chinese):

「繼續居住上述公屋地址，撤銷房屋要我搬走決定」

“to continue living in the public rental housing flat and to rescind the Housing Department’s decision to evict me”

3.  Together with the Form 86, the Applicant has filed an affirmation, along with a letter from the Legal Aid Department dated 10 December 2024, and a letter from the Housing Authority dated 15 October 2024.

4.  However, precisely what the Applicant intended to challenge is unclear.

5.  I gave permission for the Appeal Panel to file an Initial Response to the application.  Although the Appeal Panel adopted a neutral stance, it provided some information by way of objective facts and information.  Despite the opportunity to file a Reply, no further materials were filed by the Applicant.

6.  I accept that the application has since become somewhat stale, but there is no prejudice to the Applicant in the circumstances outlined below.  I am satisfied that the application can suitably dealt with on paper.

B.  Objective Facts

7.  From a reading of the materials provided by the Applicant and the Putative Respondent, the following facts can be identified.

8.  The Applicant lives in public rental housing.  On 30 November 2023, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”) filed a Notice-to-Quit (“NTQ”).  On 1 December 2023, the Applicant lodged an appeal against the NTQ.

9.  The Appeal Panel notified the Applicant that a hearing was scheduled for 13 March 2024, and the Applicant appeared at that hearing.

10.  A decision was made on 13 March 2024 by the Appeal Panel in the Applicant’s favour, amending the initial NTQ to allow the Applicant to continue living in the flat as long as she complied with the terms of the tenancy agreement and retained regular and continuous residence until 18 September 2024.  If that condition were to be complied with, the NTQ would automatically lapse at the end of that period.  However, if there was a failure to comply with the conditions, and in particular if the Housing Department confirmed that the Applicant had not retained regular and continuous residence, then the NTQ would take immediate effect.

11.  It seems that the Applicant failed to comply, and the HA issued a Notice of Termination on 15 October 2024.

C.  No Merits

12.  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 set out on the Form 86 a proper statement of the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought.  A failure to comply with such requirements is fatal to the application.

13.  In this case, the Applicant has failed to identify any public law grounds of review.  Whilst the Applicant has given reasons why she is unhappy with the decision – which need not be rehearsed here – none of those reasons form valid public law grounds of review.  Hence, the application falls to be dismissed.

14.  Even though I do not need to decide the application on the basis of delay, I would also note that a challenge on the decision made by the Appeal Panel would have failed due to delay.  Pursuant to RHC Order 53 rule 4, an application for leave must be made promptly, and in any event within a ‘long stop’ period of three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose, unless good reason is shown to the Court for any necessary extension of time.  In this case, the leave application was brought at least 25 weeks after the three-month period.  There does not seem to be any good reason for the extension of time, and the application would have been refused on the basis of delay alone.

D.  Result

15.  There being no identified reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.  I make no order as to costs.