VIVIEN LEE v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HCAL 113/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 113 OF 2007

______________________

______________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.  These proceedings were originally commenced as a High Court Action, namely HCA 1925/2007.  At the insistence of the applicant, the proceedings were transferred to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List and were given the present proceedings number, ie HCAL 113/2007.  That was how the papers in these proceedings were eventually placed before this Court for consideration.

2.  Having perused the papers, I have difficulty in comprehending the applicant’s case and her claim for relief.  I have thus directed that an oral hearing be held today so as to enable the Court to better understand the applicant’s case and the relief that she seeks, with a view to determining whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted.

3.  However, the applicant has since written to the Court indicating that she has no intention to attend the hearing today.  Indeed, she has indicated in her letter that she has not participated in the filing of a case for judicial review.  She has also mentioned in her letter that she will be away from Hong Kong “in the whole period of this year”, but she has failed to give any particulars.  Nor has she requested for an adjournment of today’s hearing to another date.

4.  I further note that on 2 November 2007, the applicant wrote to and indeed personally attended the Accounts Office of the court asking for a refund of the court fees of $1,045 that she had paid for the commencement of the original writ action.  The reason for asking for the refund was that the case had “collapsed” and there had been “a calling-off of any subsequent hearing”.

5.  The applicant has not appeared before the Court today.

6.  In the above circumstances, there is no question of the Court granting the applicant leave to apply for judicial review, which is refused.  Furthermore, it seems plain to me that the applicant has abandoned the present proceedings.  The proceedings must be dismissed.  I so order.  I make no order as to costs.