吳鉄 v. 水泉澳房屋署，梁日初 (沙田)
|
HCAL 399/2024 [2024] HKCFI 711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 399 OF 2024 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ D E C I S I O N ________________________ A. Introduction 1.These proceedings were commenced by Form 86 dated 1 March 2024, which identifies the proposed respondent as a named individual of Shui Chuen O, Shatin, Housing Department and the target of the intended challenge as:
2.The Form 86 fails to identify the relief sought, and does not set out any grounds on which relief is sought. 3.The Applicant’s supporting affirmation merely states the desire to make an application for judicial review for public housing tenancy abuse. No further information is provided, and no documents are attached. B. No Merit in Application 4.It is a requirement of Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2) that an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made ex parte by filing in the Registry (a) a notice in Form 86 containing a statement of (amongst other things) the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and (b) an affidavit verifying the facts relied on. 5.In breach of the mandatory requirement, the Applicant has failed properly to identify the relief sought and any grounds on which it is sought. There is no identified relief at all, and no grounds of review are identified in either the Form 86 or the affirmation. Simply suggesting an “abuse” does not satisfy the mandatory requirements. 6.It is not for the Court to seek to divine what it is that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review is seeking by way of relief, or the basis upon which it might be argued that that relief could be granted. Nor can the Court proceed without any factual basis having been identified. 7.Therefore, this application does not even begin to get off the ground. The Applicant fails to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success. 8.I note that the Court received a notification dated 6 March 2024 showing that the Applicant has applied for legal aid. In the circumstances outlined above, I would lift any legal aid stay triggered by that application. But, in any event, I note that a further notification dated 20 March 2024 shows that legal aid has been refused. C. Result 9.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The applicant, acting in person |