TSUI KOON TIN AND OTHERS v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY

CACV 354/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 161 OF 2002)

______________

______________

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Tang JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  By judgment dated 24 May 2006, we dismissed the applicants’ appeal from Chung J, who had refused leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 1 June 2006, the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the ground that the questions involved in this appeal, by nature of their great general or public importance or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

3.  The background to this appeal and this application can be gathered from our judgment.  As we have explained, the orders complained of were properly made under the 2001 policy.

4.  This morning, two revised questions described as of public importance were faxed to the court.  They are to replace the questions which were set out in the application itself.  The questions read as follows:

“1. Does the 1988 Policy exclude any action taken by the Building Authority under the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance for structures erected such as the captioned case posing no safety risk at all since structures which pose imminent risk of danger for immediate action to be taken and structures which pose no imminent risk of danger for delaying action to be taken?

2. Does the 2001 Policy upon which Building Authority claims structures as the captioned case of imminent risk of danger for immediate action knowing fully such that structures posing no risk to safety at all be an ultra virus act for the identical case of the order CRT/RT/B/753/92/K which was subsequently withdrawn by Building Authority and the structure remains even since the leave was granted in HCAL 103/2003?”

5.  I have to say that I have difficulty in understanding these two questions.  They are ungrammatical and they do not make sense.  But guessing at their meanings, I believe they have paraphrased the questions which were raised before us and which we have decided on 24 May 2006.  Certainly they raised no question of great general or public importance, and they are also totally unarguable.

6.  That being the case, the application is dismissed.