Harjit-singh v. Mr. Law Man Ching, Vio and Others

HCAL 11/2026

[2026] HKCFI 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 11 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.This is not the first application made by the Applicant, in which he names the above two individuals and numerous government departments as the putative respondents.

2.For example, by my Decision dated 2 January 2025 [2025] HKCFI 100, I dismissed the Applicant’s habeas corpus application made in HCAL 2393/2024, which named the same putative respondents.

3.In that Decision, I pointed out that (1) the application was fundamentally misconceived, because there was no indication in the materials that the Applicant was detained at all, let alone unlawfully, (2) even if the application were to be taken as an application for leave to apply for judicial review, no specific public law grounds of review were identified, contrary to the mandatory requirements under the Rules of High Court Order 53 rule 3, and (3) the matters referenced also seemed to go back many years, despite the requirement that any application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within 3 months of the impugned decision.

4.By my further Decision dated 13 March 2025 [2025] HKCFI 1038, I dismissed the Applicant’s request for an extension of time for him to appeal from my Decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

5.For substantially similar reasons, the Applicant’s renewed habeas corpus application made in HCAL 2105/2025 was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong on 23 December 2025.

6.Now, by Form 86 dated 2 January 2026, with an affirmation of the same date, the Applicant has commenced these further proceedings.

7.The Form 86 itself appears to identify the impugned decision as the 23 December 2025 decision of the Deputy Judge made in HCAL 2105/2025. However, the affirmation in addition apparently references the Applicant’s underlying dissatisfactions or complaints relating to how a previous complaint was dealt with by the Police, and/or by the Complaints Against Police Office, and/or by numerous other governmental departments. In the attachment to the affirmation there is also some apparent request for a new writ form, though again much of what has been written by the Applicant is, with respect, unintelligible.

8.The Form 86 does not ask for an oral hearing. Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that the application can appropriately be dealt with on paper. This is my Decision.

B.  No Basis for Grant of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

9.The application simply fails to identify any proper basis on which the Court might grant leave to apply for judicial review.

10.First, in so far as the intended challenge is to the decision of the Deputy Judge, this Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate court from decisions of the Court of First Instance.

11.Secondly, again in breach of the mandatory requirements under the procedural rules, the Applicant has failed to identify any specific relief sought, or any public law grounds of review which are said potentially to justify the grant of relief.

12.Thirdly, again in so far as the matters set out are intelligible at all, at bottom the Applicant’s complaint seems to be about the way that the Police and the CAPO have handled his reporting of an alleged crime, and his inability to have obtained satisfaction from 25 government departments. The failure to have identified any specific impugned decisions and any intended public law grounds of review is exacerbated by the obvious significant delay, and the failure to have identified any good reason why any extension of time might be granted.

C.  Result

13.The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of judicial review with any realistic prospect of success.

14.In the circumstances, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

D.  Postscript

15.After the above Decision was prepared, and after the Applicant was given notice of handing down of the Decision, the Applicant sent a further fax to the Court. Amongst other things, the fax appears to put forward a late request for an oral hearing, and to repeat some of the matters previously put forward in relation to his underlying dissatisfaction with the way in which he feels he has been treated by the Police. He also appears to suggest that he has other materials to prove what he says is true.

16.However, nothing in the fax seems to me to lead to any different conclusion than that set out above. The Applicant is not entitled to any oral hearing of his application where he has not requested one in his Form 86, where there is no apparent public law ground identified in the materials, and where he is apparently long out of time for making an intended judicial review challenge in relation to the actual underline complaints. Further, applications for leave to apply for judicial review are not dealt with on some rolling basis of provision of materials to the Court. That is why an applicant is required in the original application papers to identify the relief sought and the public law grounds of review on which it is sought, and to make an affidavit or affirmation verifying the facts relied on.

17.For the reasons already stated above, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person