翁潔美 v. 房屋署

HCAL 47/2025

[2025] HKCFI 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 47 OF 2025

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A. Introduction

1.  By her Form 86 dated 6 January 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge a decision which she describes as (in English translation):

Housing Department requires me to move out from the flat.

2.  No grounds of review are set out in the Form 86, nor is there any description of the relief sought.

3.  The Applicant’s affidavit filed in support of her application merely says (in English translation):

I YUNG KIT MAY, because of long-term taking care of my elder brother aged 87 with sickness, who died on 6 January 2024, could not get along with [my] son FUNG KA FU [transliteration], since then I and my son become alienated. Later, I met my neighbour who is an old man aged 93 and I knew him for years. I worked for him at his home as a domestic helper, earning ranging from $3,000 to $4,000 per month approximately. For most of the time at his home, after preparing meal, taking shower and doing laundry, I then return home, causing my low water consumption level as alleged by the Housing Department which demands for recovery of the flat where I live, my only residence. Now, I already quitted my job, and sincerely asking for your help, thank you.

4.  Having considered these materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper.

5.  This is my Decision.

B.  Dismissal

6.  The following propositions are trite:

(1)  An application for leave to apply for judicial review must clearly identify the impugned decision intended to be challenged in the proceedings.

(2)  The application must also be commenced by a Form 86 which contains, amongst other things, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought.

(3)  An application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made promptly, and in any event within three months of the impugned decision, unless an extension of time is sought from and granted by the Court.

(4)  Ordinarily, applications for leave to apply for judicial review will not be entertained where there is an available alternative remedy.

7.  In this case:

(1)  Though the Applicant has apparently identified a decision of the Housing Department requiring her to vacate her premises as the impugned decision, no date of that decision has been given, nor has the form in which the decision was made and/or notified been given.

(2)  The Applicant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to identify the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought.

(3)  The content of the Applicant’s affidavit makes certain factual assertions, but does not seek to identify any public law errors on the part of the Housing Department.

(4)  Because the date of the impugned decision is not given, it is not known whether the intended challenge has been brought promptly and/or within the long stop three-month period, or whether an application for an extension of time would be required.

(5)  Decisions of the Housing Department terminating a tenancy are ordinarily appealable to the Appeal Tribunal (Housing), such that there is an available alternative remedy.

(6)  If in fact the Applicant has unsuccessfully pursued such an appeal, she has failed to identify that fact, or any public law error on the part of the Appeal Tribunal.

8.  In the circumstances, in addition to the point that the Applicant may have or have had an available alternative remedy, the Applicant has simply failed to identify any public law grounds of intended review which are reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

9.  Hence, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review stands to be dismissed, and I so order. I make no order as to costs.