YEUNG WAH WAI v. LONG TEAM LTD AND OTHERS

HCAL 1420/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1420 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 8 July 2020, the Applicant filed a Form 86 in which (i) Long Team Limited, (ii) Tak Wing Property Company, (iii) the Buildings Department, and (iv) the Estate Agents Authority were named as proposed respondents. The Applicant failed, however, to state the “judgment, order, decision or other proceedings in respect of which relief is sought”, or the “relief sought”, or the “grounds on which relief is sought” in the Form 86 as required by Order 53, rule 3(2)(a)(iii) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A). These are mandatory requirements. On this ground alone, the application for leave to apply for judicial review should be dismissed.

2.  In a document attached to his affirmation dated 8 July 2020 as “Attachment A”, the Applicant refers to an action in the District Court (DCCJ 1296/2016), in which the Applicant was the plaintiff and Long Team Limited was the defendant.  His claim in that action was dismissed by H H Judge Tsui after trial on 18 September 2017, and his application for leave to appeal against that decision was dismissed by H H Judge Tsui on 15 December 2017 and by the Court of Appeal on 26 September 2018 (CAMP 49/2018).

3.  In Attachment A, the Applicant has raised some complaints against Long Team Limited and Tak Wing Property Company, which have either been resolved against him in the District Court action, or are private law matters.  The Applicant has also raised some complaints against the Buildings Department and the Estate Agents Authority.

(1)  The Applicant’s complaint against the Buildings Department is that it failed to “monitor the buildings which are involved in illegal main structures” and it is alleged that “it looks like [the Buildings Department] acquiesced some ... property owners in disguised form to violate relevant ordinances on their own property”.  This complaint is unparticularised and is not supported by evidence.

(2)  The Applicant’s complaint against the Estate Agents Authority is that it terminated a complaint made by him against Tak Wing Property Company.  As can be seen from the Estate Agents Authority’s email dated 19 May 2020, it made the decision on the ground that, based on the information provided by the Applicant and Tak Wing Property Company, there was no objective evidence to show whether Tak Wing Property Company had entered into any estate agency contract with the Applicant in 2014 or provided certain specified information to him.

The Applicant has failed to show that either the Buildings Department or the Estate Agents Authority has made any decision which was illegal or irrational, or reached in a procedurally unfair manner.

4.  The intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.