Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Lam Kit Seong Miranda

CACV 142/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.142 OF 2008

(On Appeal from HCA 2107/2006)

___________________________

BETWEEN:

Before: Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of hearing and judgment: 13 June 2008

Date of Reasons for judgment: 17 June 2008

------------------------------------

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

-----------------------------------

Hon. Cheung JA:

1.I agree with Yuen JA’s reasons.

Hon Yuen JA:

2.At the hearing on 13 June 2008 there were before us:

(1)     Madam Yuen’s appeal from Lam J’s refusal to grant her leave to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to Practice Direction 11.3 (regarding Restrictive Proceedings Orders);

(2)     Madam Yuen’s summons filed on 5 June 2008 to adduce certain evidence; and

(3)     Madam Yuen’s summons filed on 11 June 2008 to adduce certain further evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal and the two summonses and indicated that we would give our reasons in writing in due course.  These are my reasons.

3.The proceedings which Madam Yuen sought leave to issue was an application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The Form 86A indicated on its face that the judgment, order, decision or other proceedings in respect of which relief was claimed was one judgment of the Court of First Instance and two judgments of the Court of Appeal.  The relief sought was “to rescind and annul the Bankruptcy Order dated 27^th February 2008”.   

4.It is well-established that judicial review is not available against the High Court (including the Court of Appeal) as they are superior courts of record : Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2008 vol.1 p.844 §53/14/21.  Lam J was therefore clearly right when he refused leave to issue this application for leave to apply for judicial review, saying that “there cannot be any judicial review in respect of the judicial decisions identified in Form 86A.  Nor can the court grant the relief prayed for in a judicial review”. 

5.None of the matters in Madam Yuen’s affirmations filed pursuant to her two summonses were relevant to Lam J’s decision or the reasons for them.

6.Accordingly we dismissed the appeal and the two summonses.

The Plaintiff (Appellant) in person