劉永基 v. 房屋委員會上訴審裁小組

HCAL 2297/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2297 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

A. Introduction

1.  The Form 86 in these proceedings is hand-written in Chinese and is dated 28 November 2024.  It names the Appeal Tribunal, Housing Authority as the putative respondent.  But it then identifies the judgment, order or decision in respect of which relief is sought as (in translation):

Extend the time limit for (seeking leave to apply for)  judicial review.

2.  The box for ‘relief sought’ states (in translation):

(I)  have applied for legal aid from the Legal Aid Department and notified them that I had yet to seek (leave to apply for)  judicial review.  However, since the time limit for judicial review has passed while my legal aid application is still pending due to the ongoing procedure, I am now applying for (leave to apply for for)  judicial review on my own first.

3.  In the supporting affirmation, which has no exhibits, the Applicant stated the following (in translation):

I seek (leave to apply for)  judicial review against the decision made by the Appeal Tribunal, Housing Authority, (which demands that I)  move out of my place of abode in Lung Fook House, Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate. The above unit is currently under renovation and not fit for living.  Thus, (I)  do not accept them making (the accusation)  that (I)  have not been living in the flat for a long time (for no particular reason).

B.  Consideration of Application

4.  I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on the papers.

5.  From the above, it is apparent that the Applicant has failed properly to identify any decision of the Appeal Tribunal, which is sought to be impugned.  There is no date given for the decision, and the decision itself has not been produced by way of an exhibit to the affirmation.

6.  Similarly, neither the Form 86 nor the affirmation properly identify the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, contrary to the mandatory requirement under Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2).  A statement by an applicant that he or she does not agree with or accept the impugned decision or its reasoning does not identify any public law grounds of review.  It is trite, that it is not for the Court to seek to identify for itself what decision is being challenged, and any potential public law basis for challenge.

7.  Further, in so far as the application might be taken to be merely an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review, there is again no necessary materials as would enable the relevant exercise of discretion.  Even the period of time for the extension is not identified.  Further, it is well-settled that an application for legal aid does not ordinarily identify any basis for an extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review.

8.  Acknowledging that the Applicant acts in person, the mandatory rules are nevertheless applicable to all applicants (whether legally represented or not).

9.  In the circumstances, the Applicant has failed to identify any reasonable grounds of judicial review with any realistic prospect of success, and/or has failed to identify why it is appropriate for the Court to give any extension of time for the application.

C.  Result

10.  In the circumstances, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review and/or any extension of time for making such an application is dismissed.

11.  I make no order as to costs.