Ngai Fook Lam v. Appeal Panel (Housing)

HCAL 1052/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1052 OF 2025

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 6 May 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge a decision of the Appeal Panel (Housing) made on 2 April 2025 (“Appeal Decision”).

2.The Applicant is apparently a tenant in public housing, and had been served by the Housing Authority with a notice terminating the tenancy. By the Appeal Decision the prior termination of the tenancy was confirmed.

3.The Form 86 identifies the grounds on which the stated relief of certiorari is sought as follows:

The applicant was unable to defend his case due to sickness.

4.The Applicant’s supporting affirmation simply says the following:

1.  The decision of the Appeal Panel (Housing) was made on 2^nd April 2025. The result was that it confirmed the termination of the tenancy. (Attached Exhibits B-C)

2.  I was absent from the hearing on 26^th March 2025 due to sickness. (Attached Exhibit A)

5.The stated Exhibit A is a medical certificate signed at 2:45pm on 26 March 2025, certifying that the Applicant attended the A&E department at the Queen Mary Hospital on that day, and that he was recommended sick leave from 26 to 27 March 2025 inclusive.

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

B.  No Merit Identified

7.It is trite that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must set out in his or her Form 86 a proper statement of the relief sought and the grounds upon which that relief is sought. A failure to do so is itself fatal to the application. The Court is not obliged to speculate, or to seek to identify for itself, public law grounds of review which might be put forward. Indeed, it is public law grounds of review which are required to be advanced.

8.Unfortunately, the Applicant’s simple statement that the Applicant was absent from the hearing on 26 March 2025, even if it was due to the sickness evidenced by the medical certificate, does not of itself identify any public law ground of review capable of amounting to a proper judicial review challenge to the Appeal Decision.

9.In passing, I would also note that (1) the hearing at which the Applicant failed to appear was on 26 March 2025, (2) the medical certificate produced as the exhibit to the Applicant’s affirmation identifies that sick leave was recommended only for that day and the following day; (3) the Appeal Decision was only given on 2 April 2025; but (4) the Applicant does not suggest in his evidence that he sought to inform the Appeal Panel as to the reason why he would not or did not appear at the appeal hearing, either on the day of the appeal hearing or at any time prior to the date of the Appeal Decision.

C.  Result

10.The Applicant having failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, with any realistic prospect of success, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person