陳嘉琪 v. 律政司司長 AND ANOTHER

HCAL 313/2022

[2022] HKCFI 1396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 313 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  The Form 86 and supporting affirmation (both in Chinese) were filed by the Applicant on 6 May 2022. The decision in respect of which relief is sought is the dismissal from employment decision dated 5 July 2019.

2.  The proposed Respondents are the Secretary for Justice and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.  The name and description of all interested parties is stated to be (in translation):

People in the post of Assistant Taxation Officer, civil servants and the general public (e.g. taxpayers, people who are concerned about how public money is spent …)

3.  No grounds of review are stated on the Form 86.  All that the affirmation in support says (in translation, and ignoring deletions from the original Chinese text) is:

Re Form 86, work performance appraising officer is suspected of applying different/unfair criteria and methods, by the power of his/her position, in the assessment and handling of the granting and usage concerning public money.  Due to lack of legal knowledge, after seeking free legal consultation service available to the public and making reference to reports by news media, I filed the case with the Labour Tribunal re: Claim No. LBTC 1556/2020 and with the Court of First Instance High Court appeal No. HCLA 3/2022. I now adopt the advice obtained from the free legal consultation service at the Home Affairs Department and apply for leave to judicial review.

4.  I do not think that identifies any proper intended grounds of review.  Of itself, the failure to identify any proper intended grounds of review is fatal to the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.  I also note that the intended challenge is to a decision dated 5 July 2019.  Where an intended judicial review challenge requires leave to be sought as soon as possible, and in any event within three months of the decision – unless an extension of time is sought and granted – that delay is also fatal to the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

6.  Further, though not made clear either by the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation, it seems that the Applicant previously held the post of Assistant Taxation Officer in the Inland Revenue Department.  Though no further detail is offered by the Applicant in the documents filed by her, she has made reference to her Labour Tribunal claim and the application for leave to appeal from the determination of the Labour Tribunal.

7.  I have found the decision of Madam Justice Lisa Wong on 27 April 2022 dismissing the Applicant’s application in HCLA 3/2022 for leave to appeal.  From that decision, it appears that the Applicant’s claim in the Labour Tribunal (apparently seeking in excess of HK$10 million) was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was predicated on an argument that the Labour Tribunal’s decision was without jurisdiction.  That argument was rejected.

8.  In the circumstances, it seems to me that the current proceedings are also a collateral attack on the previous decisions of the Labour Tribunal and the Court of First Instance.  That is an abuse of process.

9.  For any and all of those reasons, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed (with no order as to costs).