RE PARK YOUNG SOOK

HCAL 52/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 52 OF 2009

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The applicant is the respondent in some matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court.

2.  On 13 March 2009, Her Honour Judge Melloy continued a non-molestation injunction order against the applicant which effectively prevents the applicant from having any contact with her son, who is about 13 years old.

3.  The applicant claims that she was unaware of the order until she went to school to pick up her son on 5 May 2009.  It was then that she was informed by the school that the order had been made against her.  According to her, the order was made without her knowledge, and it is quite clear from the order itself that it was made in her absence.

4.  The applicant says that the order infringes her human rights regarding contact with her own son; she has not had a fair hearing; she has been denied legal representation; the order has been made as a result of ‘dishonest manipulation’ by the Petitioner in the matrimonial proceedings; and the judge has not been impartial in the proceedings and has in fact treated her very rudely.

5.  She now applies for leave to apply for judicial review with a view to quashing the judge’s order.  In the papers she asks for an oral hearing, and an oral hearing is therefore held today.

6.  I am afraid the application of the applicant, who is acting in person, is wholly misconceived.  I say so with no disrespect, because quite obviously, the applicant has been acting without the benefit of legal advice.

7.  It is plain that the applicant feels aggrieved by the order in question, but judicial review is not the right procedure to air her grievance.  As I have explained to the applicant at the hearing, she may consider applying to the Family Court to vary or discharge the injunction order, or alternatively, where appropriate, she may apply for leave to appeal from the order to the Court of Appeal.  Whether she would be successful if such an application should be made is not a matter for this Court to comment on, but the important point is that in any case, judicial review is not the right legal procedure to right whatever wrong, if any, that has been done to the applicant by reason of the order.  She has simply taken the wrong procedure and has come to the wrong court.

8.  This Court has at today’s hearing tried its best to explain the legal picture to the applicant.  There is nothing else that it can do.

9.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person