王健恩 v. 深水埗民政事務處

HCAL 1433/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1433 OF 2024

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

1.  This is the Applicant’s (“Wong”) application for leave to apply for judicial review filed on 26 August 2024. The decisions in question are said to be the contents of 3 letters from the Sham Shui Po District Office (“DO”) dated 14 August 2024, 16 August 2024 and 23 August 2024 (respectively, “1^st Letter”, “2^nd Letter” and “3^rd Letter”).

2.  The Form 86 filed by Wong did not contain any ground for the application.  This failure is by itself fatal to this application: see Robinson v 香港特別行政區政府入境事務處生死登記官郭俊峯先生 [2024] HKCFI 2479, [3].  In any case, I am unable to see any merit in this application.  

3.  What can be gleamed from Wong’s affirmation filed on 26 August 2024 and the Letters which were attached thereto regarding the background facts can be succinctly stated as follows. 

4.  At the material times, there was a dispute between two groups of residents of Lei Cheng Uk Estate (“Estate”), one headed by Mr Lau and the other by Mr Yeung.  Each group claimed to be the legitimate members of the Management Committee (“Committee”) of the Estate.  The dispute caused a deadlock in the management of the Estate, so much so that the bank account of the Estate was frozen and the essential services were not paid for. There was an imminent risk that such essential services would cease in the Estate. 

5.  Wong is one of the residents of the Estate.  It appears that he takes the side of the Lau group.  In his affirmation, he alleged that the DO had failed its duties given the situation of the Estate. In order to hide its dereliction of duties, the DO took the side of the Yeung group and tried to usurp the function of the Lands Tribunal in deciding which was the rightful Committee. 

6.  Wong seeks an order declaring that the Letters had usurped the function of the Lands Tribunal in LDBM 130/2024; and to injunct the Home Affairs Department and the DO (a) from interfering with the internal affairs of the Committee and (b) to respect the results of the meeting of the owners of the Estate held on 16 August 2024. 

7.  The 1^st Letter was written in polite terms to the members of the two groups.  It referred to the predicaments of the owners of the Estate as a result of the dispute over the Committee.  The addressees were urged to have regard to the welfare of the owners at the forefront.  Based on (a) the registration by the Land Registry of the Yeung group in the register of management committees on 5 April 2024; (b) the strike out by the Lands Tribunal on 16 July 2024 of the action of the Lau group for an order that the election of the Yeung group was ineffective; and (c) the acceptance by a Magistrate of Yeung’s capacity to represent the Committee in a case involving the same, the writer urged the Lau group to respect the facts and to proceed with the hand over to the Yeung group as soon as possible.

8.  The 2^nd Letter was considerably shorter than the 1^st.  It was written to Lau in respect of his attempt to convene a meeting on 16 August 2024 in the name of the chairman of the committee.  The writer reiterated the 3 factual matters stated in the 1^st Letter, stated the DO’s view that Lau and his group should not continue to act in the name of the Committee and that the DO would not attend the meeting.  The Letter again urged Lau and his group to respect the facts and engage with the Yeung group for the handover. 

9.  The 3^rd Letter was also short and written to Lau.  It referred to a number of actions taken by Lau in the name of the Committee, and expressed the view that such actions might seriously affect the residents and owners of the Estate, as well as the Committee.  The Letter again urged Lau and his group to act with the welfare of the Estate’s residents in mind, respect the facts and engage in the handover to resolve the current crisis and restore the normal operation at the Estate.

10.  Whilst one may say that it was implicit in the 3 Letters that the DO had agreed with the legitimacy of the Committee headed by Yeung, there were clearly reasons for doing so.  I see no suggestion in Wong’s affirmation that any of the reasons was flawed. 

11.  Plainly, the DO was acting within its duty to try to resolve the crisis at the Estate.  I fail to see any reason why the Letters or any of them would justify the intervention of the court.

12.  For these reasons, this application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.