Woo Tak Yan v. Administrative Appeals Board

HCAL 114/2016

[2025] HKCFI 5455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 114 OF 2016

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.By a Form 86 dated 21 June 2016, the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review to challenge a decision (“Decision”) of the Hearing Board of the Administrative Appeals Board (“Board”) given on 22 March 2016.

2.The Decision was given in relation to Administrative Appeal 18/2015, to which the parties were the Applicant and the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“Commissioner”). The Appeal was against a decision of the Commissioner made on 30 April 2015, where the Commissioner exercised his statutory power not to pursue the Applicant’s complaint against the Environmental Protection Department, where the Applicant was then working as a civil servant.

3.The Form 86 does not request an oral hearing. However, by a direction given on 10 July 2017, Fung J notified that the hearing of the application for leave would be heard inter partes on 10 August 2017. Unsurprisingly, the Board as Putative Respondent notified the Court that it would take a neutral stance and not participate in the judicial review proceedings, but would abide by the Court’s decision.

4.Subsequently, on 27 July 2017, Fung J ordered the 10 August 2017 hearing date to be vacated. He also ordered that the Commissioner be joined as a Putative Interested Party, and to file an initial response. That initial response was provided on 1 September 2017.

5.On 26 February 2018, Chow J (as Chow JA then was) gave directions that there should be an oral hearing of the application for leave to apply for judicial review, at which the Commissioner would be at liberty to attend and resist the application for leave.

6.However, no further steps were taken by any party thereafter.

7.On 20 August 2021, my clerk sought to make a telephone inquiry with the Applicant, but no person answered the call. Still, thereafter, no further steps were taken.

8.When this matter was recently brought to my attention, I gave a direction that unless by 4pm on 7 November 2025 I heard from any party requesting a different course of action – which request, if made, I would consider – then the proceedings would be dismissed forthwith, with no order as to costs.

9.By letter dated 5 November 2025, the Applicant simply requested consideration of the application for leave to apply for judicial review, “as the application intended, by paper disposal of considered appropriate”. He offered no explanation for his delay and inaction over the intervening period. Nor did he offer any reason why the application might still be worthy of deployment of Court resources.

10.Having considered the matter, I see no reason why Court resources should be further used in relation to this stale judicial review action, where the Applicant has chosen to take no active steps whatsoever for a period of over eight years after receipt of the initial response filed for the Commissioner, and where the underlying complaint relates to a decision made by the Commissioner over 10 years ago, and the Decision made by the Board almost 10 years ago.

11.In any event, a quick review of the materials identifies that there is insufficient merit in the stale complaint as would justify further time.

12.Therefore, I exercise my case management discretion to dismiss the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person