關偉建 v. 房屋局

HCAL 1100/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1100 OF 2026

________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

DECISION

________________

I. INTRODUCTION

1.Before me are:-

(1) The Summons filed by the Applicant on 29 July 2026 (the “Leave Summons”) for leave to appeal against my Judgment handed down on 17 July 2026 (the “Judgment”) ([2026] HKCFI 4086) refusing leave to apply for judicial review (the “Form 86”); and

(2) The Summons filed by the Applicant on 30 July 2026 (the “Stay Summons”) for an order of stay of the execution of the Writ of Possession dated 12 March 2026 (the “Writ of Possession”) issued upon the possession order granted in favour of the plaintiff in DCCJ 5509/2023 (the “DC Action”) against the Applicant.

2.The Putative Respondent’s attendance is excused.

II. THE LEAVE SUMMONS

3.In the Judgment, I refused leave to apply for judicial review on the ground that the Form 86 was filed out of time and that there were no merits in the Form 86 in any event. For appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, whether it was refused on the ground of out of time and/or merits, no leave to appeal against the refusal is required: see H v Director of Immigration (2020) 23 HKCFAR 248 at §§37-38 per Fok PJ delivering the lead judgment.

4.For this reason, I dismiss the Leave Summons.

5.In any event, I read and considered the draft grounds of appeal received by the Court on 17 August 2026 (the “Draft NOA”). It contains 68 paragraphs on 12 pages, in breach the requirement in §22 of Practice Direction 4.1 that “A notice of appeal must not be prolix, unfocused or canvass evidence or submissions at length”. Despite the breach, as said, I read and considered the Draft NOA in detail. The lengthy submissions in the Draft NOA are, in effect, a repetition of the Applicant’s submissions made before me on the previous occasion. Even if leave for appeal were required, I would not be satisfied that there are any reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal. Here are a few points I would like to elaborate:-

(1) How the 1952 Undertaking and the 1959 Agreement should be construed and understood (§§33-42 of the Judgment) was a matter of evaluative assessment of all the relevant factors, with which the appellate court would be slow to interfere. Further, I fail to see any material effect of the distinction the Applicant is trying to make in §24 of the Draft NOA between “permanent re-provision” and “permanent alternative accommodation”.

(2) How the EC Condition should be understood in its proper context (§43(4) of the Judgment) was also a matter of evaluative assessment of all the relevant factors.

(3) In §§30-33 of the Draft NOA, the Applicant alleges that there was no evidential basis for me to say (in §39 of the Judgment) that Lee Chiu chose not to ask the Government for permanent re-provision under paragraph (1) of the Points of Agreement but accepted the permanent re-housing provided by the Corporation under paragraph (4) of the Points of Agreement. With respect, the evidential basis is plain and obvious – it is the fact that Lee Chiu moved to the THSE developed by the Corporation.

III. THE STAY SUMMONS

6.The Stay Summons has been scheduled to be heard on 2 September 2026. However, given the dismissal of the Leave Summons, I find it appropriate to deal with the Stay Summons here in one go. Since there are not even reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to grant any stay, and vacate the hearing on 2 September 2026.

7.In any event, the subject matter for the stay sought by the Stay Summons is the Writ of Possession issued upon the possession order granted in the DC Action. The Putative Respondent is not a party to the DC Action, while the plaintiff to the DC Action, namely, the Corporation, is not joined to the present proceedings. This alone is also sufficient for me to dismiss the Stay Summons.

8.Further, in its judgment handed down on 31 July 2026 in CAMP 20/2026, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the judgment in the DC Action and refused the Applicant’s application for stay of the possession order in the DC Action, upon which the Writ of Possession was issued. Even if I would have power to stay an order in another action, I would not exercise such power given that the Court of Appeal has already refused to do so.

IV. CONCLUSION

9.In summary, I dismiss the Leave Summons and also the Stay Summons. I make no order as to costs.

The Applicant appearing in person

Attendance of Department of Justice, for the Putative Respondent is excused