Wan Kin Shing v. Secretary for Justice and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1839/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 September 2020.

1. In this application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Applicant seeks to challenge the judgment of Chung J given on 29 March 2018 in HCA 696/2015, being a civil action brought by 2 nd Putative Respondent against the Applicant, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 2 September 2020 in CACV 107/2018 dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 5 June 2020.

Cites 2 cases

Case No.HCAL 1839/2020[2020] HKCFI 2449
Court
High Court CFI
Date23 Sep 2020
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1839/2020

[2020] HKCFI 2449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1839 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

  WAN KIN SHING Applicant
  and  
  SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 1st Putative Respondent
  KING POLICY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 2nd Putative Respondent

________________________

Before:  Hon Chow J in Chambers

Date of Decision:  23 September 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________


1.In this application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Applicant seeks to challenge the judgment of Chung J given on 29 March 2018 in HCA 696/2015, being a civil action brought by 2nd Putative Respondent against the Applicant, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 2 September 2020 in CACV 107/2018 dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 5 June 2020.

2.It is well-established that judicial review does not lie against a judgment or order of the High Court.  The intended application for judicial review of the aforesaid judgments is misconceived.

3.Further, the subject decisions sought to be challenged in the intended application for judicial review were not made by the 1st or 2nd Putative Respondents.  There is no proper basis to join them as putative respondents for the purpose of the present application.

4.The intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success. Accordingly, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

  (Anderson Chow)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

The Applicant acting in person