CHU CHAU KA YEE v. HKU ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE OFFICE

HCAL 795/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 795 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.  An attempt by a student to withdraw from a university course, only after taking the course examination, and as a result of being dissatisfied with the results achieved on that examination, does not seem likely fertile ground for a complaint made by way of judicial review. But that is the context of these proceedings.

2.  The Applicant is a student in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Hong Kong. This is the second application she has made in quick succession, in relation to the same matter.

3.  The first application was made in HCAL 674/2026, in which the Applicant identified the intended target of the judicial review challenge as ‘Consent to the Plaintiff’s application for class withdrawal or application for make-up examination’. However, there was no statement of any relief sought, nor any grounds upon which relief was sought, nor any accompanying affidavit or affirmation.

4.  By my Decision dated 14 April 2026 [2026] HKCFI 2053, I dismissed the application as being in clear breach of the mandatory requirements applicable to applications for leave to apply for judicial review. Quite simply, the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review at all, let alone any with any realistic prospect of success.

5.  Now, in these subsequent proceedings commenced by Form 86 dated 22 April 2026, the Applicant again seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the decision by the Faculty/University (“Impugned Decision”) to refuse her application to withdraw from the MATH2101 course, or to permit a ‘make-up’ examination, on the grounds of her illness. The relief sought is for a dismissal of the Impugned Decision, and to allow her to withdraw from the course or take a make-up examination.

6.  It is useful here to set out the basis of the Impugned Decision notified to the Applicant. She was told that her request for late drop could not be approved because: (1) an application for a late drop should be made before the examination period if the student’s situation has been confirmed to affect his/her academic performance; and (2) if the student is unable to attend an examination due to illness, or if the student believes that his/her health status immediately before or during the examination has significantly affected performance, the student should (a) consult a doctor and obtain a sick leave certificate covering the examination date, (b) complete Part I of the Form of Medical Certificate and have the doctor complete Part II, and (c) submit the completed Form, together with the original sick leave certificate, to the Examinations Office within seven calendar days of the examination concerned (the examination date is counted as the first day). Late or incomplete submissions will not be accepted.

7.  Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to decide this application on paper. This is my Decision.

B.  The Basis of Application

8.  No grounds upon which the relief is sought are specified on the Form 86. However, the supporting affirmation filed by the Applicant is divided into sections with the following headings (in English translation) (sic):

(1)  The defendant discriminated against and disrespected persons suffering from depression disorder.

(2)  The defendant despised new undergraduate students from the School of Computing & Data Science and selectively dismissed the application.

(3)  The defendant failed to deliver its obligation of due diligence towards mainland undergraduate students, never informed them of how extraordinary circumstances were to be handled and failed to take regional differences in learning culture into account.

(4)  The unreasonable system without make-up examination.

9.  I do not think it necessary to rehearse in detail the contents of the affirmation under those headings, or its attachments (being some medical reports and the correspondence between the Applicant and the Faculty). Suffice to say the following:

(1)  One of the courses on which the Applicant was enrolled was the MATH2101 course, and she says it was the most demanding of her courses.

(2)  The Applicant says that she had no idea that she was suffering from depression disorder before the examination for MATH2101 and that she was greatly affected during the examination period.

(3)  She sat the MATH2101 final exam out of a sense of responsibility, but found it extremely difficult to maintain concentration.

(4)  When the results were released, the significant gap between the results and her coursework and in-semester assessments made her realise that her condition had not been merely temporary.

(5)  It was only after seeking medical consultation that the Applicant fully understood the severity of her depressive condition during the period.

(6)  It is correct that she failed to inform the Faculty in time, but that was also the result of experiencing a serious psychological problem that required attention.

(7)  Further, she had no similar experience of studying in Hong Kong.

(8)  She applied for late drop for the course, or alternatively for a make-up examination.

(9)  However, the Faculty refused to approve that request.

(10)  The failure of the Faculty to inform her about the main rules and regulations, including how emergencies arising during examinations were to be handled, amounts to undiligent management.

(11)  Further, it is “extremely unreasonable” to have a system that has no make-up examination.

C.  No Merit

10.  With respect, there is absolutely no merit in this application.

11.  First, the procedural rules applicable to applications for judicial review require a complete application to be advanced in compliance with those requirements. The rules are not designed to permit an applicant to make an incomplete application, which is then dismissed as a result, but to renew the application in fresh proceedings in the hope of having met the procedural requirements.

12.  Secondly, I do not think a complaint about the policy towards university examinations when the student claims performance is or may be affected by health matters is a matter of sufficient public elements as to make it amenable to judicial review.

13.  Thirdly, nothing in the materials produced by the Applicant identifies any reasonably arguable public law wrong. The Faculty/ University has adopted one obviously appropriate means of addressing claimed medical health impacts on study or examination performance (and it is not for the Court to rewrite such a policy). The Applicant does not state she could not have known those matters, but simply says that she did not know them – for which she seeks to blame the Faculty/University. The Applicant sat an exam and was dissatisfied with her results. Only then did she seek medical consultation (but, even then, apparently one month after the date of the examination). The Applicant failed to comply with the requirements as might have permitted proper consideration of a late drop/withdrawal from the course, for the reasons explained to her.

14.  Fourthly, there is simply no reasonably arguable basis to make allegations of discrimination, or to suggest that the procedures adopted by the Faculty/University are “extremely unreasonable”.

D.  Result

15.  In the circumstances, where the Applicant has failed to identify a challenge amenable to judicial review and/or to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.