SUM YEE MING v. 何寶蓮 AND ANOTHER

HCAL 759/2022

[2022] HKCFI 2591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 759 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 dated 5 August 2022, filed on 16 August 2022, the applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review.  It is not apparent from the Form 86 the precise decision the applicant seeks to impugn.  But action numbers of two sets of proceedings in the High Court were mentioned.

2.  The application is utterly without merit.

B.  The Two Sets of Proceedings

3.  The two sets of proceedings both arise from the will of the late father of the applicant (“Father”).  The 1^st putative respondent, Ms Ho, is a former daughter-in-law of the Father.  Thus, the applicant and Ms Ho are former sisters-in-law.

4.  The Father passed away in 2019.  By the Will made in 2016, Ms Ho was made the sole executrix and trustee of the Father’s estate.  Ms Ho was granted probate in 2020.  The applicant and Ms Ho are both (albeit together with others)  the beneficiaries of the estate.  Ms Ho was given HK$3,000,000 under the Will and such sum has already been distributed to her on 9 June 2020.

5.  The first set of proceedings mentioned in the Form 86 started with HCA 1157/2019 which was commenced by the applicant on 28 June 2019.  The applicant asked: (a) for the Will to be declared invalid; (b) for Ms Ho to be removed as an executrix, trustee and beneficiary of the Father’s estate; (c) for Ms Ho to produce a “real” schedule of assets of the estate; (d) for Ms Ho to return to the children the luxury items of the Father; and (e) for Ms Ho to deliver the various gifts to the applicant and her daughter as promised by the Father whilst he was still alive.  The Statement of Claim was struck out and the case dismissed by Master Hui on 23 June 2020.  The applicant appealed against Master Hui’s decision and the appeal was rejected by Yeung J on 20 October 2020.  The applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 3 November 2020 in CACV 589/2020, the resolution of which is pending.

6.  The second set of proceedings mentioned in the Form 86 is connected to the first set.  In HCA 1157/2019, after Master Hui had dismissed the applicant’s case, he also awarded costs to Ms Ho which was assessed at HK$400,000 on 20 July 2020.  The applicant did not pay the costs.  Ms Ho then issued a statutory demand and petitioned for the applicant’s bankruptcy.  On 7 June 2021, the applicant was declared bankrupt in HCB 1229/2021 by Linda Chan J.  The applicant appealed in CACV 331/2021 but the Court of Appeal upheld Linda Chan J’s decision on 19 May 2022. The applicant sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal which was rejected on 11 August 2022 (though apparently the applicant had not yet been made aware of this by the time she filed her Form 86, but the information is available on the Judiciary’s website).

C.  No Merits in the Application

7.  In the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation, the applicant sets out myriad complaints against Ms Ho in connection with the Father’s estate.  There are also complaints against the judges in charge of the relevant proceedings in respect of their management of the cases or their decisions.

8.  For her complaints against Ms Ho concerning the Will and the Father’s estate, those are clearly private law matters which are not amenable to judicial review.

9.  For her complaints against the judicial officers, they are immune from legal actions in respect of their handling of the two set of legal proceedings: see 莊裕安　對　關淑聲及其他人 [2019] HKCA 898, at §9. 

10.  Those complaints could provide no reasonably arguable grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.

11.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore, dismissed.  I make no order as to costs.

D.  Postscript

12.  I am handing down this Decision at the same time as another Decision [2022] HKCFI 2593, given in other proceedings HCAL 502/2022 where the applicant has made a plainly unmeritorious application for leave to apply for judicial review.

13.  Both applications strongly suggest that the applicant would habitually re-litigate cases she has already lost in different avenues, in what amounts to collateral attacks on matters already decided in earlier proceedings. Judicial review does not exist for such purposes.  To seek to use judicial review proceedings for such purposes is an abuse.  To do so repeatedly risks the applicant being declared vexatious.