WONG YIN PING v. HOUSING AUTHORITY

HCAL 396/2024

[2024] HKCFI 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 396 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

DECISION

_________________

A. Introduction

1.  These proceedings were commenced by Form 86 dated 28 February 2024, which identifies the proposed respondent as the Housing Authority and the target of the intended challenge as (capital letters in original):

Eviction Notice. Notice-To-Quit

SPECIAL TRANSFER NOT SUCCESSFUL

PAY AROUND THREE THOUSAND PER MONTH 9^th Feb., 2024

2.  The Form 86 fails to identify the relief sought, and does not set out any grounds on which relief is sought.

3.  The Applicant’s supporting affirmation merely states:

illegality

procedure impropriety

proportionality, Wednesbury unreasonableness

irrationality

violation of fundamental rights

4.  Attached to the affirmation is an Eviction Notice addressed to the Occupant at an address on the Un Chau Estate, Kowloon – which is the address given on the Form 86 as the Applicant’s address. The Eviction Notice gives notification that the Occupant must cease using and occupying the relevant premises on or before 1 March 2024, otherwise the Housing Authority will carry out an eviction operation in order to recover the flat.

B.  No Merit in Application

5.  It is a requirement of the Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2) that an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made ex parte by filing in the Registry (a) a notice in Form 86 containing a statement of (amongst other things) the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and (b) an affidavit verifying the facts relied on.

6.  In breach of the mandatory requirement, the Applicant has failed properly to identify the relief sought and any grounds on which it is sought. There is no identified relief, and the mere invocation of the standard potential heads of judicial review (illegality, procedural impropriety, etc) without more does not satisfy the requirement properly to identify grounds of review. Nor is there a statement of any relevant facts relied on, let alone any verification of those facts.

7.  It is not for the Court to seek to divine what it is that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review is seeking by way of relief, or the basis upon which it might be argued that that relief could be granted. Nor can the Court proceed without any factual basis having been identified.

8.  Therefore, this application does not even begin to get off the ground. The Applicant fails to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success.

C.  Result

9.  I note that upon receiving notice that this Decision would be handed down on 13 March 2024, the Applicant contacted the Court on 11 March 2024 to say that she had other documents to provide – which were not described – and asked for the matter to be put off (preferably to an afternoon). I decline to accede to that request. An application for leave to apply for judicial review requires compliance with the rules and the mandatory requirements of the rules. Either an application is compliant when made, or it is not. The Court will generally deal with an application as made, and will generally not allow some sort of rolling process where an applicant gradually provides material in tranches.

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