WONG YIN PING v. HOUSING AUTHORITY
HTML content
HCAL 396/2024
[2024] HKCFI 1557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 396 OF 2024
________________________
BETWEEN
| WONG YIN PING | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| HOUSING AUTHORITY | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) | Putative Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: | Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Open to Public) |
| Date of Hearing: | 6 June 2024 |
| Date of Decision: | 6 June 2024 |
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
A. Introduction
1. By my Decision dated 13 March 2024, I dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. That application was made by a Form 86 which identified the proposed respondent as the Housing Authority and the apparent target of the intended challenge as an Eviction Notice and Notice-to-Quit. However, the Form 86 failed to identify the relief sought, and did not set out any grounds on which relief was sought.
3. On the application of settled principles, which I identified, I held that the application did not even begin to get off the ground. Quite simply, the Applicant had failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success.
4. I also noted that upon receiving notice that the Decision would be handed down on 13 March 2024, the Applicant contacted the Court on 11 March 2024 to say that she had other documents to provide – which were not described – and asked for the matter to be put off (preferably to an afternoon). I declined to accede to that request.
5. I pointed out that an application for leave to apply for judicial review requires compliance with the mandatory requirements of the rules. Either an application is compliant when made, or it is not. The Court will generally deal with an application as made, and will generally not allow some sort of rolling process where an applicant gradually provides material in tranches.
6. Now, by summons dated 9 May 2024, the Applicant has applied for a stay of execution.
B. The Application
7. By that application, the Applicant does not appear to seek a stay of execution of my previous Decision. Rather, it seems she seeks a stay of execution of the process of the “whole eviction action” pending the outcome of her intended appeal to the Court of Appeal.
8. The material provided by the Applicant as an attachment to her affirmation dated 24 May 2024 supporting the application is, with respect, rather convoluted and unclear. Some of the material consists of emails sent by the Applicant to officers of the Housing Authority asking for no eviction action to be taken on the eviction notice, or for it to be cancelled or at least delayed. She also refers to being “on special transfer”.
9. Nevertheless, amongst other things, the material does appear to confirm what the Court has also been told in a letter dated 31 May 2024 from solicitors on behalf of the Housing Authority – namely that on 27 March 2024 the Applicant was already evicted from the public rental housing unit previously occupied by her, and the Housing Authority has therefore recovered possession of that unit.
10. It is understandable that, in those circumstances, the solicitors for the Housing Authority identified their inability to decipher the meaning behind the current application, or the nature of the relief actually sought by the Applicant.
11. The Applicant filed a further affirmation dated 4 June 2024 in which she appears to complain of how her belongings were treated (presumably during the eviction operation), though it was not clear from that material alone that the various items that she identifies were all in the premises at the time of the eviction action. Again, amongst other things, the Applicant refers to being on “special transfer”.
12. Just before the hearing, the Applicant handed up further materials, being a series of emails between herself and the Department of Justice and the solicitors for the Housing Authority, as well as emails about her belongings apparently sent to officers of the Housing Authority
13. This morning, the Applicant has (in my summary) orally made the following points:
(1) She has read my previous Decision, but does not understand how the Decision could be made when the materials for her application were not complete.
(2) She had prepared the application for judicial review in a hurry, and it was incomplete, and she was hoping that the Legal Aid Department would follow up and deal with the documents for her.
(3) She has not as yet made any application to the Court of Appeal, as she is waiting for the legal aid Department to do that for her, though the reason for the application will be ‘procedural impropriety’.
(4) She has confirmed that the various belongings that she has listed in her materials were in the unit at the time of her eviction on 27 March 2024.
(5) Some of them were in locked cabinets or drawers.
(6) She did not take them with her at the time of the eviction, but (it seems) she intends to remove them to a different location.
(7) So as to do that, she has made many attempts to contact officers of the Housing Authority, by telephone or by email, but there has been no proper reply to her.
14. The Applicant also confirmed that what she wished to say on this present application was contained in the various materials previously filed in these proceedings, including the most recent materials.
C. Consideration and Result
15. None of the material filed for the purposes of this application adds anything to the merits of the original application for leave to apply for judicial review. There is still no clear identification of any alleged public law wrong based on verified facts. With respect, nothing helpful was said by the Applicant in her oral submissions either.
16. If the application for a stay of execution were directed at my previous Decision, there is no proper basis for a stay, where there was a right of appeal under the rules, and where the Applicant has indicated that she intends to appeal, albeit that she has not yet done so. (Incidentally, I would point out that the time within which an appeal ought to have been brought was by 27 March 2024.)
17. Further, the stay of execution as was sought by the Applicant – namely a stay of execution of the eviction action – is nugatory, where she herself confirms what has been stated on behalf of the Housing Authority, that she has already been evicted on 27 March 2024.
18. Further still, the stay of execution was sought pending the result in the Court of Appeal, but the Applicant has not in fact made any application or appeal to the Court of Appeal.
19. The matters sought to be raised in the latest affirmations and her materials handed up today also add nothing to her application, but rather seek to deal with a wholly separate complaint.
(1) The original complaint in these proceedings and application for leave to apply for judicial review was about the Eviction Notice and Notice-to-Quit. That application was dismissed.
(2) The present complaint seems to me about the belongings which the Applicant has left in the unit from which he was evicted, and her apparent dissatisfaction at attempts to contact officers from the Housing Authority in relation to recovering those belongings.
20. I am not prepared to proceed on this application for a stay of execution by reference to a fundamentally different underlying complaint than that originally made in these proceedings.
21. Further, in so far as the Applicant complains of dissatisfaction in the way her attempts to contact the Housing Authority have been dealt with, this Court does not act as some sort of general ‘customer relations’ type supervisor.
22. In the circumstances, even assuming I am not functus following the making of my previous Decision, I see no good reason to grant the stay of execution sought by the application. The application is dismissed.
23. I make no order as to costs.
| (Russell Coleman) | |
| Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
The applicant, acting in person
Li, Kwok & Law, Solicitors for the putative respondent (attendance excused)