李玉玲 v. 入境處

HCAL 949/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 949 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  The Applicant acts in person.

2.  On 14 June 2023, she filed a Form 86 and stated in the field where an applicant is supposed to identify the intended subject of challenge “I object for the Immigration Department to take back my Hong Kong ID card” (“本人反對入境處收回本人的身份證”).

3.  Neither the proposed grounds of review nor the relief sought are set out in the Form 86.  Her supporting affirmation contains one sentence which essentially paraphrases what I have already quoted above.

4.  By a bilingual letter dated 26 June 2023 sent to the Applicant by the Court, I stated that she had failed to set out the relief sought or the grounds on which relief is sought, contrary to the mandatory requirement under Order 53 Rule 3(2)(a)(iii) of the Rules of High Court Cap 4A.  I directed that unless she was to seek to amend the Form 86 by setting out the relief sought and the grounds on which relief is sought by 14 July 2023, her leave application would be refused for failing to comply with Order 53 Rule 3(2)(a)(iii).  The letter also stated that she might seek legal advice or approach the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants in the High Court.

5.  The letter was sent by ordinary post to the Applicant’s address set out in the Form 86.  As of the date of this Decision, the Applicant has not sought to amend the Form 86.  Nor has there been any further correspondence from her to the Court.

6.  In any event, because the Form 86 fails to identify any reasonably arguable ground of intended review, it follows that leave to apply for judicial review will be refused.

7.  Therefore, I dismiss the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, with no order as to costs.