盧漢星 v. 消費券計劃秘書處(財經事務及庫務局)

HCAL 2062/2023

[2023] HKCFI 3150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2062 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_________________

DECISION

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  In his Form 86 dated 20 November 2023, the Applicant has named the Consumption Voucher Scheme Secretariat (Financial Services and Treasury Bureau (“FSTB”)) as the putative respondent.

2.  Having considered the materials filed by the Applicant in this matter, I think it appropriate to deal with this matter on the papers.

3.  This is my Decision.

B.  Deficient Form 86

4.  In the Form 86, the Applicant has identified the ‘Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which the relief is sought’ as follows (in English translation):

The respondent should, in accordance with the decision of the Legislative Council, disburse to the applicant consumption voucher of $5000 and bear costs.

5.  From that statement – which reads more like a claim to certain relief – it might be inferred that the Applicant wishes to challenge a ‘decision’ not to have disbursed a consumption voucher to himself. However, there is no proper description of any such ‘decision’. Further, no grounds upon which the relief is sought have been identified.

6.  It is trite that it is a mandatory requirement of Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court that an applicant for judicial review must make his/her application in the required form, containing a statement of (amongst other things) the grounds upon which the relief is sought. The failure to do that is itself fatal to the application, as it is not for the Court to go through the papers to seek to divine whether there is any, if so what, possible ground of review.

7.  Nor does the material annexed to the Applicant’s affidavit assist – though I note it identifies that the Applicant has apparently made written complaints to the FSTB and the Ombudsman. There is also the suggestion that the Applicant may not have registered for the consumption voucher within the necessary period for that registration.

8.  Nevertheless, be that as it may, in the absence of a properly formulated application for leave to apply for judicial review, the application falls to be dismissed.

9.  Put shortly, the Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of review with any reasonable prospect of success.

C.  Disposal

10.  Therefore, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.