Case Detail

PETER AR FU LAM v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Related cases with same parties

CACV105/2015THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV113/2012LAI SIU-KIN REMBERT v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV131/1995HEAD STEP LTD. v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV175/2008EMPEROR HOTEL (HK) LTD v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV19/2012BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
CACV210/1997WAH YICK ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV229/2016BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
CACV277/2012BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
CACV321/2008SKY WIDE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CACV68/2019LAM AR FU PETER v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CAMP284/2023LAM AR FU PETER v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
CAMP70/2019LAM AR FU PETER v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
DCMP2662/2010BUILDING AUTHORITY v. MR. HARDING RUSSELL JOHN CHALLONER AND ANOTHER<br>
DCMP275/1987BUILDING AUTHORITY v. OWNERS OF THE ILLEGAL & STRUCTURES ON THE ROOF OF 9/F., AND ROOF ABOVE FLATS A1 & A2 ON 10/F., 105 AUSTIN ROAD, PAK ON BLDG., KOWLOON (K.I.L. 2302)
DCMP2903/2008BUILDING AUTHORITY v. CYBER TRADE TRADING LTD
DCMP3411/2016BUILDING AUTHORITY v. GOOD FORTRESS LTD
DCMP512/1987BUILDING AUTHORITY v. OWNERS OF THE ILLEGAL & STRUCTURES ON THE ROOF OF 9/F., AND ROOF ABOVE FLATS A1 & A2 ON 10/F., 105 AUSTIN ROAD, PAK ON BLDG., KOWLOON (K.I.L. 2302)
FACV12/1998WAH YICK ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
FACV15/2017BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS) AND ANOTHER
FACV19/2015THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Files (2)

102621-EN-2016-02-05

PETER AR FU LAM v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

HTML content

HCMP 2878/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2878 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 113 OF 2015)

_______________

BETWEEN
	PETER AR-FU LAM	Applicant
and
	BUILDING AUTHORITY	Respondent

_______________

Before : Hon Lam VP, Hon Barma JA, and Hon Poon JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions : 19 and 27 January 2016

Date of Judgment : 5 February 2016

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. By a judgment handed down on 21 December 2015, this court (consisting of Lam VP and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s ex parte application for extension of time to appeal against the order of Au J dated 12 October 2015, refusing to grant him leave to judicially review the demolition order issued by the Building Authority on 20 March 2008 which required him to demolish a container erected or installed on the roof of his premises.

2. By a notice of motion dated 28 December 2015, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against that judgment. He based the application on four issues :

“(1) Premature decision of HCAL 113/2015;
(2) Obvious unfair treatment throughout the appeal processes as a whole, towards an indulgence request of the Appellant as compared with all the indulgences previously granted to the Respondent as a whole;
(3) Questions of law of public interests, that may provide a great relief to general public sufferings;
(4) Scope of Constitutional rights raised in the appeal processes as a whole.”

3. The applicant must satisfy us that these questions involved in his appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are ones which, by reason of their great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision : see section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

4. We have read the applicant’s written submissions dated 19 and 27 January 2016. His submissions are basically a re-run of the points previously advanced before Au J and this court, which had all been rejected. His complaints about the procedural unfairness in the court proceedings are entirely misconceived and unmeritorious. All in all, we fail to see how any of the points that he relied on could possibly satisfy the “great or general or public importance” limb or “the otherwise” limb in section 22(1)(b).

5. We accordingly refuse his application for leave to appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

(Johnson Lam)	(Aarif Barma)	(Jeremy Poon)
Vice‑President	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Written submission by the applicant, unrepresented

No written submission from the respondent

HCMP 2878/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2878 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 113 OF 2015)

_______________

BETWEEN
	PETER AR-FU LAM	Applicant
	and
	BUILDING AUTHORITY	Respondent

_______________

Before : Hon Lam VP and Hon Poon JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions : 9 December 2015

Date of Judgment : 21 December 2015

____________________

J U D G M E N T
____________________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. This is the applicant’s ex parte application for extension of time to appeal against the order of Au J dated 12 October 2015, refusing to grant him leave to judicially review the demolition order issued by the Building Authority on 20 March 2008 which required him to demolish a container erected or installed on the roof of his premises.

2. The learned Judge has set out in some length the reasons why he refused to grant leave in his observations accompanying his order.

3. In an application for leave to appeal out of time, the Court of Appeal takes into account :

(1) the length of the delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay;
(3) the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing is extended; and
(4) the degree of prejudice to the potential respondent if the application is granted.

4. The statutory time limit for the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s order expired on 26 October 2015. He took out the present summons for leave to appeal out of time on 4 November 2015. So there is a delay of nine days. The delay is not inordinate.

5. The applicant explained the delay thus. He had a pre-planned trip to visit his daughter in the USA in October 2015. He requested the Judge to extend the time until end of October 2015 “for releasing any court paper that required [his] personal attention.” However, the Judge refused to grant the extension and made his order on 12 October 2015. The applicant took out the application after returning to Hong Kong.

6. It seems that the applicant is complaining that the Judge ought to have withheld the order until his return to Hong Kong. But the Judge was perfectly entitled to conduct the case in the way as he did. He is enjoined to dispose of an application for leave to apply for judicial review as expeditiously as practicable in the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s inconvenience because of an overseas trip is hardly a relevant consideration in the overall case management by the Judge.

7. The delay in taking out the present application is in our view self-inflicted by the applicant. It is inexcusable.

8. More importantly, we can see no substance whatsoever in the applicant’s intended appeal. We have carefully considered all the grounds of appeal that he sought to rely on. They are essentially a repetition of the grounds and arguments advanced before the Judge in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge has dealt with them in his observations in length. We agree with his reasons entirely. As the Judge has demonstrated, all the grounds are simply not reasonably arguable. The Judge was correct in refusing to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant has failed to satisfy us that the Judge has in any way erred in so doing.

9. For the above reasons, we dismiss the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time with no order as to costs.

(Johnson Lam)	(Jeremy Poon)
Vice-President	Justice of Appeal

Written submission by the applicant, unrepresented

No written submission from the respondent