CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. MS. LAU, ACO & MR. PANG, USHER OF COURT OF FINAL APPEAL

HCAL 2128/2023

[2023] HKCFI 3111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2128 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  These proceedings were commenced by Form 86 dated 28 November 2023. Both of the named proposed respondents are clerical staff at the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).

2.  However, in the box on the Form 86 which requires the Applicant to identify the ‘Judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought’, the Applicant has simply written “No Judgment, order or other processing”. Nor does the Form 86 identify any grounds on which relief is sought.

3.  That is fatal to the application for leave to apply for judicial review, which stands to be dismissed as a result.

4.  It is also not surprising, as the document appended to the Applicant’s affirmation identifies that the Applicant’s real complaint is as regards the quality of the public service provided by the proposed respondents, when they dealt with his attendance at the CFA when he wanted to file an application for leave to appeal to the CFA.

5.  That document is headed “This is an ex parte application for leave of judicial review to seek an Order for more “user friendly” public service with the front desk staff of the court.”

6.  The Court does not exercise its judicial review jurisdiction to deal with ‘customer service’ complaints, even if the services were provided by public servants. If there is uncertainty as to how the Applicant could comply with the rules relating to applications to the CFA, he might approach the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants in the High Court Building.

7.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person