YAU WAI KEUNG v. BUTTERFLY ESTATE OFFICE OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT IN TUEN MUN

HCAL 681/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 681 OF 2025

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a public housing tenant at the Butterfly Estate in Tuen Mun.

2.  By Form 86 dated 17 March 2025, and an affirmation of the same date, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review.

3.  The part of the Form 86 relating to the ‘Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought’ and the body of the affirmation are materially identical, and state (in English translation):

The Butterfly Estate is a public housing estate in Tuen Mun, the construction of which was completed 40 years ago. The Housing Department recently converted the areas used originally for ventilation into rooms on the corridors near the stairs of each block, which affects the ventilation, the lives and health of the residents. When the residents moved in, they were entitled to 3 housing offers. The Housing Department suddenly blocked the areas after the residents had moved in. The conversion affects the ventilation and blocks the light, which has an impact on the residents.

4.  The part of the Form 86 where the Applicant should fill in the ‘Relief sought’ has an entry which has been deleted and initialled. The part of the Form 86 where the Applicant should fill in the Grounds on which relief is sought is left blank.

5.  I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper. This is my Decision.

B.  Consideration of Application

6.  In an application for leave to apply for judicial review, it is a mandatory requirement of Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court that the Form 86 must contain, amongst other things, a statement of the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought.

7.  As I have indicated above, the Applicant’s Form 86 has no statement of the relief sought. Nor does it identify any grounds on which relief is sought. There is also nothing in the affirmation identifying any relief sought, or any grounds for seeking that relief.

8.  The affirmation merely sets out some factual matters, repeating what has been said on the Form 86 in identification of the subject-matter of the intended challenge. The chronology of those factual matters is also somewhat unclear.

9.  There may or may not be some sympathy for the situation described by the Applicant. But that is not the point of judicial review. Nor does the Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction generally reconsider the merits of steps and decisions taken by public authorities. Rather, the Court is in essence concerned with the integrity of the decision-making process. That is why there is the mandatory requirement for an applicant to identify the public law grounds of review for the intended challenge.

10.  The failure to seek appropriate relief, and to identify properly the public law grounds which can be said reasonably arguably to justify that relief is fatal to the application. As has been frequently stated, it is not for the Court to seek to identify potential public law grounds of review.

C.  Result

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review, let alone one with any reasonable prospect of success.

12.  In those circumstances, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.