吳玫蓉 v. 王淑芬 and Another

HCAL 1182/2022

[2022] HKCFI 3423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1182 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

AND

HCAL 1195/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1195 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

(Heard together)

Before:  Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Decision:  17 November 2022

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.These two leave applications were instituted by the same applicant. In both applications, the Applicant repeated the same complaints against AIA Insurance Company (“AIA”) – identified as a putative respondent in both actions – and submitted largely overlapping documents as evidence. Given the substantial commonality of the two applications, I consider it appropriate to deal with them together.

2.The thrust of the complaints appears to be that the Applicant was tricked into buying two insurance policies issued by AIA by two of its insurance agents (“Ms Wong” and “Mr Wan”). Ms Wong is named as a putative respondent in both actions. Mr Wan is only named as such in one of them. The complaints against Ms Wong and Mr Wan are general allegations such as misrepresentation, fraud, tampering with the policies, etc.

3.The Applicant applied for legal aid (presumably to assist her claim against AIA, Ms Wong and/or Mr Wan) which was rejected by the Director of Legal Aid. She appealed against the decision of the Director in LAA 1240/2019, but her appeal was rejected by Deputy Registrar J Wong by a decision dated 20 May 2021 (“LAA Decision”). The Applicant exhibited the LAA Decision in both leave applications, although neither the Director nor the Deputy Registrar is named as a putative respondent in either of them.

4.Insofar as the Applicant intends to launch an attack in respect of her insurance policies or the LAA Decision, I have no difficulties in rejecting both of them.

5.The complaints in respect of her insurance policies are plainly private law matters which are not amenable to judicial review. That is sufficient to dispose of this matter.

6.The challenge against the LAA Decision is also not reasonably arguable.

(1)  The challenge is grossly out of time. The three-month period within which leave application must be taken out has already expired on 20 August 2021. The Applicant did not ask for time extension nor did she try to explain the substantial delay in any way as might justify an extension of time.

(2)  In any event, her case in respect of the LAA Decision is clearly unmeritorious. She raised three complaints: (i) the Director did not appear in the legal aid appeal hearing, (ii) the Director did not submit the Applicant’s insurance policies as evidence, resulting in the hearing being adjourned, and (iii) the Deputy Registrar initially said she might not necessarily lose but later said she might lose.

(3)  None of these are reasonably arguable grounds. Legal aid appeals are ex parte applications. The Applicant being also the applicant in the legal appeal had a duty to submit all documentary evidence she considered helpful to her case. I see no public law wrong arising from the Deputy Registrar’s comments even assuming those comments were indeed made during the hearing.

7.I dismiss these two applications with no order as to costs.

The applicant in both cases, acting in person