黃鉅正 v. 上訴委員會（房屋）

HCAL 80/2025

[2025] HKCFI 323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 80 OF 2025

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A. Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 7 January 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge a decision of the Appeal Panel (Housing), dated 22 November 2024 (“Impugned Decision”).

2.On the Form 86, in that box relating to the ‘judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought’, the Applicant wrote (as translated into English):

The Appeal Panel (Housing) dismissed my appeal and has to recover my public housing unit, so I want [wrong character] to appeal to make them withdraw the recovery.

3.The Applicant’s supporting affirmation simply states (as translated into English):

On 22-11-2024, the Appeal Panel sent me a letter notifying me that my appeal was unsuccessful and that I had to move out of my public housing unit. However, at that time, I was only arguing with them about the problem of no water consumption. They said no water consumption meant that I was not living there, and I forgot to mention one important point, that is, staff of debt collection company often came to cause nuisance, so I often stayed at my son’s home, and the person who owed the debt was the previous tenant.

4.Having considered these materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper.

B.  Consideration

5.It is trite that 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.

6.In this case, the Applicant has in effect stated merely that (1) he wants to appeal against the Impugned Decision, and (2) he forgot to raise a point on which he might have relied during the hearing before the Appeal Panel. It is, therefore, clear that the Applicant has not stated any public law ground for seeking to challenge the Impugned Decision.

7.Indeed, this Court exercising its judicial review function does not sit as a further appellate court from decisions of the Appeal Panel. Nor does it provide an opportunity for persons to revisit or seek to improve upon arguments advanced by them in the proceedings leading to the decision which is sought to be challenged. Further, this Court exercising its judicial review function is ordinarily not concerned with the merits of the underlying decision, and is concerned only to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process. However, the application in this case makes no suggestion of any procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality.

C.  Result

8.The Applicant having failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success, his application for leave to apply for judicial review stands to be dismissed. I so order.

9.I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person