陳安艳 v. 香港恒生大學

HCAL 2036/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2036 OF 2025

____________________

____________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.The Applicant is a postgraduate student at The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, the putative respondent to this application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The application is made by Form 86 dated 9 September 2025, and the intended target of the judicial review challenge is described as “the contents and the decision of the Post-Consultation Report”. That is a reference to the Post-Consultation Report dated (or following a Consultation Meeting on) 12 June 2025, a copy of which is attached to the Applicant’s affirmation made in support of the current application.

3.That Report identifies the following matters:

(1)  The Applicant has the ‘Academic Status’ of “Academic Warning”.

(2)  The part of the Report relating to ‘Challenges/Difficulties’ (to be completed by the student) states “Difficulty in course content in these modules, unfamiliarity with AI use in assignments policy, and communication (or miscommunication) with teachers”.

(3)  The recommendation that the student take three modules in the following semester, two of which are retakes after a failed module.

(4)  The part of the Report relating to ‘Suggested Study Plan/Action Plan’ states “Retake the two core modules, and take one elective in the 2025-26 academic year to fulfil the graduation credit requirements.  Also, please observe the university policy in AI, attendance, and plagiarism and ensure smooth communications with teachers”.

4.The Form 86 identifies that the relief sought is an order of certiorari, but does not identify the Grounds on which relief is sought.  The Applicant’s affirmation merely says:

The defendant’s decision to put the plaintiff on the Academic Status of Academic Warning/Academic Probation is extremely unreasonable.  Such decision is based on mistaken facts such as the erroneous conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s AI use in assignments, attendance (ELTA6005).

B.  Consideration

5.It is a mandatory requirement of the Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3 that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must identify the grounds of review for the intended challenge.  Any relevant grounds would be public law grounds.  Failure to do that is itself likely fatal to the application.

6.In this case, the Applicant has not identified any public law grounds of review.  Merely to state that the impugned decision is “extremely unreasonable”, or even that the decision is “based on mistaken facts” does not properly identify any public law grounds of review.

7.In any event, it seems to me that a university Programme Director’s decision as to what grade to give to a student is not a matter of sufficient public law characteristics as would make it amenable to judicial review.  The dispute raised by the Applicant is in effect a private law dispute between her and the Programme Director and/or the University.  The Court does not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction to resolve grading disputes between an individual student and the university.

C.  Result

8.In the circumstances where the impugned decision is highly unlikely to be amenable to judicial review, and where the Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success, the application is bound to fail.

9.Therefore, I dismiss the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, with no order as to costs.