何漢標 v. 陳靜芬高等法院原訟法庭法官

HCAL 1693/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1693 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  This application for leave to apply for judicial review was brought by Form 86 dated 27 September 2024. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with it on the papers. The application is fundamentally misconceived, and it stands to be dismissed.

2.  The Applicant’s complaint broadly arises out of bankruptcy proceedings brought against him in HCB 5972/2023. He was apparently adjudged bankrupt by order of Linda Chan J on 27 November 2023. Subsequently, his application for leave to appeal out of time against the bankruptcy order was dismissed by Linda Chan J on 26 March 2024.

3.  In the present application, the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal against the bankruptcy order, and orders to set aside the bankruptcy order made against him and the refusal of the extension of time for him to appeal against that order, as well as related costs orders. He also seeks to set aside a previous order dated 3 October 2023 made by DHCJ Winnie Tsui (as Winnie Tsui J then was) dismissing his application to set aside the statutory demand made against him (on which it seems the bankruptcy petition was based), and her assessment of costs.

4.  The Applicant also names as interested parties various other Judges or Judicial Officers involved in the various proceedings (including a District Court Master, a District Court Judge, and three Judges of the Court of Appeal), as well as Counsel who acted for the creditor during a High Court trial in December 2016, and in subsequent District Court proceedings in September 2021.

5.  Quite simply, the various matters and decisions about which the Applicant makes complaint in these proceedings are not amenable to judicial review. This Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate court.

6.  Nor is this Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction some form of ‘last resort’, to which a person can look after failing to achieve what that person regards as a satisfactory outcome from the litigation process through the courts.

7.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.