黃國華 v. 中國移動電訊有限公司
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1127/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 November 2022.
1. The Applicant acts in person.
|
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):
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.
The applicant, acting in person | ||||||||||||||||||