Wang Hongyu v. Russell Adam Coleman of Court of Appeal

Case No.HCAL 1641/2026[2026] HKCFI 5609
Court
High Court CFI
Date02 Oct 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1641/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1641 of 2026

BETWEEN

  WANG HONGYU Applicant
  and  
  RUSSELL ADAM COLEMAN OF COURT OF APPEAL Putative
    Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s Decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

    consideration of the documents only;            or
    consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant
    or counsel [                               ] in open court;

Order by The Honourable Madam Justice Au-Yeung:

Leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Reasons:

1.By Form 86 filed on 22 September 2026, the applicant, Mr Wang, seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 14 August 2026 of Mr Justice Coleman J (as he then was) in HCAL 1388/2026 (“the Decision”). Mr Wang seeks (i) a declaration that the “leave application case HCAL1388/2026 was inappropriately handled”; (ii) a mandamus requiring Coleman J to amend the Decision in accordance with a correct version edited by Mr Wang (in Exhibit 3 to his supporting affirmation) in order to correct the spelling, grammatical, copying and pasting mistakes, which occurred in the learned Judge’s own writings and in his quotes from Mr Wang. Mr Wang also asks that the amended Decision be uploaded onto the Judiciary’s website and the amended copy be sent to Mr Wang and all the respondents of HCAL 1388/2026.

2.At his request, this oral hearing is held today.

3.This is a wholly frivolous application and abuse of process. Any alleged “mistake” identified by Mr Wang in the Decision could have formed the subject matter of a corrigendum to be issued by the learned Judge instead of issuing this leave application. The so called “mistakes” do not in any way affect the proper comprehension of that Decision.

4.At this oral hearing, Mr Wang confirms that this leave application is to correct those “mistakes”, and is not targeted against the contents of the Decision. In fact, he has not appealed against the Decision.

5.Nothing in Form 86, Mr Wang’s affirmation, or submission at this oral hearing has identified any public law grounds and plainly he is not able to do so in respect of the Decision.

6.Accordingly, I dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

Dated  2nd day of October 2026

  (Ringo Tam)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence




Notes for the Applicant:

If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must:
       
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);

b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and

c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
  Sent/Handed to the Applicant/
the Applicant’s solicitors on
2/10/2026

WANG HONGYU
  Sent/Handed to the Respondent/
the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on
2/10/2026

RUSSELL ADAM COLEMAN OF COURT OF APPEAL
Putative Respondent
c/o Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit) 2
Department of Justice
6th Floor, Main and East Wing, Justice Place
18 Lower Albert Road,
Central, Hong Kong



Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error