黃國華 v. 中國移動電訊有限公司

HCAL 1127/2022

[2022] HKCFI 3331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1127 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The Applicant acts in person.

2.  Whilst he has filed the form for an application for writ of habeas corpus under RHC Order 54 rule 1, the address for service provided in the form is a residential unit in a public housing estate. Nor does he state in the supporting affirmation that he is currently detained anywhere and/or by what authority. Indeed, the Respondent identified in the affirmation – “中國移動有限公司” translated as “China Mobile Limited Company” – is different from that in the application form and appears to be a private company rather than a public authority.

3.  The affirmation only contains some broken phrases in Chinese (with court translation):

人多才大 全部事實大家知道

杀手已徑出現行危險 還望大人給予批準.

Strong in manpower and wealth (homonphone) All facts Everybody knows

Killer has already (homophone) appeared Walk(ing) dangerous Hope your Lordship would grant the approval.

4.  If this is an intended application for writ of habeas corpus, the Applicant has to set out the nature of the restraint imposed upon him under Order 54 rule 1(3). This has not been done.

5.  The reference in the affirmation to the granting of approval bears some resemblance to a judicial review leave application. But the requirements for an application for leave under Order 53 rule 3, such as the use of the Form 86, the setting out of grounds, and so forth are obviously not met.

6.  In any event, the application form together with the supporting affirmation fail to disclose an application which could be properly adjudicated by the judicial review Court.

7.  The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.