蘇書幼 v. 區域法院登記處

HCAL 2003/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2003 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  It is appropriate to determine this case on the papers, and it is one of those cases which it is tempting to deal with in just two words: ‘application dismissed’. But those two words reveal nothing except the result. Whereas, the appropriate modern, open and transparent approach to the administration of justice requires the identification of what application has been made, and at least brief reasons to explain why it has been dismissed.

2.  Indeed, a litigant is entitled to see from the Court’s decision that his or her application has been considered and addressed and, if dismissed, to understand the reasons why it has been dismissed. The fact that the application is dismissed on the basis that it is adjudged to be utterly without merit does not change that entitlement. There is also a genuine public interest in being able to see those matters from the Court decisions which are now routinely uploaded to the Judiciary website. The length of any decision, and the potential involvement of other parties, will depend on the view taken by the individual Judge as to what is the appropriate and fair way to address the particular circumstances.

3.  The Applicant in this case has made two previous applications for leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 150/2023 and HCAL 2193/2023. Both applications were ultimately to make matters of complaint about an underlying personal injury claim brought by the Applicant in the District Court. Neither application had merit, and both applications were dismissed.

4.  The present application names the District Court Registry as the proposed respondent, and the matter of complaint identified in the Applicant’s affirmation relates to how she says she was treated by staff members of that Registry when she tried to submit documents to the District Court on 1 November 2024. She claims that the staff members created difficulties for her, had a bad attitude and acted in a provocative manner, and called security guards. She suggests the staff members should be severely punished to deter others from doing the same thing again. She requests an order of “mandamus” requiring the Registry to perform its own duty, and a “prohibition order” that the Registry should not perform anything beyond its powers. She also seeks “mental compensation” in the sum of $20,000 and costs.

5.  It is trite that in order to obtain leave to apply for judicial review, an applicant must identify one or more reasonably arguable public law grounds of review. None are identified by the Applicant in her application. Merely invoking legal language such as “mandamus” does not change that position. In essence, the Applicant is making something akin to a customer service complaint. That is not something which is appropriate for or amenable to judicial review.

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