YEUNG KWONG TAT (EDWARD) v. OFFICIAL RECEIVER’S OFFICE

HCAL 1004/2019 &

HCAL 1005/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1097

HCAL 1004/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1004 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

AND

HCAL 1005/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1005 OF 2019

________________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  There are before the court two applications for leave to apply for judicial review made by the Applicant.

HCAL 1004/2019

2.  In the Form 86 in HCAL 1004/2019 dated 12 April 2019:

(1) The “Official Receiver’s Office & CFI. HCB 261/2003” is named as the proposed respondent.

(2) The “Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought” is stated to be –

“Commercial tort damages (Damages for non-compliance) for misconduct in public office and miscarriage of justice at HK$100M. Orders to recover property of the bankruptcy estate inside your computer records of CFI and lower courts for debtor petitioner”.

(3) The “Grounds on which relief is sought” are stated to be –

“Allegation of jurisdiction under Section 17 Cap.4 and Section 21K(4) Cap.4 & Article 35 of HKSAR BASIC LAW. Probable miscarriage of justice and misconduct in public office in mismanagement of property of the bankruptcy estate due to debtor petitioner and related parties, non civil procedures. Objections and Appeal by Yeung – non summary case inside your computer records.”

3.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs, for the following reasons.

4.  First, the application is not supported by any affidavit verifying the facts relied upon, as required by Order 53, rule 3(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

5.  Second, the remedies sought, namely, “commercial tort damages” and recovery of “property … inside … computer records”, are not relief which can properly be granted in an application for judicial review.

6.  Third, the stated grounds on which relief is sought are unintelligible or incomprehensible, and fail to satisfy the requirement of Order 53, rule 3(2)(a)(iii).

7.  Fourth, on 23 April 2019, the Applicant sent to the court a copy of a letter issued by the Clerk to Hon Lam VP to the Applicant (as the plaintiff) and MinterEllison LLP (as solicitors for the defendant) dated 4 April 2019, in which the parties were informed, inter alia, that the Applicant’s summons dated 9 January 2019 filed in CAMP 5/2019 (on an intended appeal from HCB 261/2003) was dismissed on the ground of abuse of process.  In so far as the Applicant is seeking to challenge any orders made by the High Court in HCB 261/2003 or by the Court of Appeal in CAMP 5/2019, it is well established that judicial review does not lie against such orders.

8.  In short, the intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success.

HCAL 1005/2019

9.  In the Form 86 in HCAL 1005/2019 dated 12 April 2019:

(1) “Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants – Registrars, Council Members” is named as the proposed respondent.

(2) The “Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought” is stated to be –

“Commercial tort damages (Damages for non-compliance under Section 22 Cap.50) (for misconduct in public office and miscarriage of justice) at HK$8M”.

(3) The “Grounds on which relief is sought” are stated to be –

“Allegation of jurisdiction under Section 17 Cap.4 and Section 21K(4) Cap.4 & Article 35 of HKSAR BASIC LAW. (Probable) miscarriage of justice and misconduct in public office in mismanagement of property of the bankruptcy estate (mismanagement of memberships, CPA firms licenses etc.) due to debtor petitioner and related parties, non civil procedures. Objections and Appeal by Yeung – non summary case inside your computer records.”

10.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs, for the following reasons.

11.  First, the application is not supported by any affidavit verifying the facts relied upon, as required by Order 53, rule 3(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

12.  Second, the remedies sought, namely, “commercial tort damages”, are not relief which can properly be granted in an application for judicial review.

13.  Third, the stated grounds on which relief is sought are unintelligible or incomprehensible, and fail to satisfy the requirement of Order 53, rule 3(2)(a)(iii).

14.  In short, the intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success.