HCAL 127/2024

[2024] HKCFI 1916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 127 OF 2024

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR RULING

________________________

A.  Introduction

1. By my Decision dated 3 April 2024 [2024] HKCFI 601 , I dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, following a hearing on 22 March 2024.  The Decision was handed down with a version provided to the Applicant in Chinese.

2. The Applicant’s application related to her claim made in District Court proceedings DCEO 5/2022, and sought to challenge two decisions made in those proceedings by HHJ Ko, the Chief District Judge (“CDJ”).  I refused the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review on the basis that the application was fundamentally misconceived, essentially because:

(1)  this Court does not sit as an appellate court from decisions made in the District Court, and does not have supervisory judicial review jurisdiction over decisions made by judges of the District Court; and

(2)  the Applicant had an alternative remedy in seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which alternative she had indeed apparently pursued in relation to at least one of the underlying decisions, and renewed in an application made in CAMP 143/2023.

3. Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4)  of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the Applicant had 14 days to appeal from my Decision to the Court of Appeal, had she wished to do so.  That period expired on 17 April 2024.

4. By summons dated 16 May 2024 (“Summons”), the Applicant sought an extension of time to appeal from my Decision.

5. I originally sought to deal with that application on paper by my response given in a letter/ruling dated 4 June 2024. I indicated that – on the materials put forward by the Applicant in support of her application – I saw no proper basis for exercising the discretion to extend time, and that the application should be dismissed.  I also pointed out that the Applicant might seek an extension of time from the Court of Appeal, perhaps with the lodging of an appeal if one were pursued, and that was a matter on which she could seek advice from the lawyer from whom she said she was seeking assistance (see below).  Indeed, I had in mind that an early ruling by me would assist the Applicant in bringing the matter to the Court of Appeal sooner rather than later.

6. However, the Applicant wrote to the C