劉佛照 對 房屋署
The court refused to vary the provisional costs order because the applicant's judicial review application lacked substance, was brought for private/family interest not public interest, and was delayed; the Housing Department is the executive arm of the statutory Housing Authority which issued the notice under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFI 2397
- Parties
- Applicant: 劉佛照; Respondent: 房屋署
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2021
- Case Number
- HCAL837/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional and Administrative Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused; Application to Vary Provisional Costs Order Decided
- Outcome
- Application to vary the provisional costs order refused; applicant ordered to pay costs to the Housing Authority; directions given for filing and responding to a bill of costs and for determination of amount by written summary procedure.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Costs Order, Public Interest, Statutory Authority, Delay
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
劉佛照
Applicant
房屋署
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused; Application to Vary Provisional Costs Order Decided
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the provisional costs order should be varied or discharged
- 2 Whether costs should be payable to the Housing Authority rather than the Housing Department
- 3 Whether the applicant's judicial review application was brought in the public interest and whether delay justified refusal
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused to vary the provisional costs order because the applicant's judicial review application lacked substance, was brought for private/family interest not public interest, and was delayed; the Housing Department is the executive arm of the statutory Housing Authority which issued the notice under s19(1)(a) of the Housing Ordinance (Cap. 283), and therefore the applicant must pay costs to the Housing Authority.
Court Disposition
Application to vary the provisional costs order refused; applicant ordered to pay costs to the Housing Authority; directions given for filing and responding to a bill of costs and for determination of amount by written summary procedure.
Orders
- Applicant must pay costs to the Housing Authority, including the costs of the application to vary the provisional costs order
- Respondent to file and serve a bill of costs within seven days from the date of this judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCAL 837/2020 [2021] HKCFI 2397 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 民事司法管轄權 憲法及行政訴訟2020年第837號 —————————— 申請人 劉佛照 訴 建議答辯人 房屋署 —————————— 主審法官： 高等法院原訟法庭法官李運騰 書面陳詞： 2021年7月22日(申請人) 2021年7月23日及8月2日(建議答辯人) 判決書日期： 2021年8月31日 判 決 書 引言 本年7月12 日，本席拒絕給予申請人許可延長申請期限，亦拒絕他針對公署的司法覆核許可申請。本席並且頒下暫准命令，使申請人支付建議答辯人訟費。案件詳情見判案書，在此不贅。 申請人陳詞 申請人來信，請求法庭更改暫准訟費命令。他說他和妻子已經七十歲，多年來沒有收入，只是倚靠政府津貼生活。就本案件，他們沒有能力聘請律師，精神上受到很大的壓力。申請人的妻子有長期病患，需要看醫生及服藥，並因這次的事件抑鬱。申請人說他最近收到房屋署的信件，要求他們搬走，因而徬徨無計，希望法庭可以體諒，不用他們負責訟費。申請人說他原本希望藉司法覆核申請，證明自己沒有作出虛假陳述，還自己一個清白，並讓妻子能夠在原址居住，以幫助她的康復等等。申請人附上妻子和自己的醫療報告。 建議答辯人陳詞 建議答辯方反對申請人更改暫准訟費命令的申請，理由如下: 申請人的司法覆核許可申請缺乏任何實質理據； 建議答辯方出席聆訊, 並正向法庭提供實質及有用的協助； 申請人事實上已就其理據在法官席前進行了聆訊； 申請人謹為個人(家庭)利益，而並非為任何公共利益，作出申請提出司法覆核。 考慮 本席經詳細考慮, 同意建議答辯方的陳詞。申請方的各項理據無一有可爭議之處，本席在判案書內已有分析和判斷，在此不贅。建議答辯方應法庭請求，就申請人的個案，在事實和法律方面給予了法庭相當幫助。申請人亦已運用機會，就其各項理據，在本席席前逐一陳詞。如建議答辯方所言，申請人的司法覆核是由個人(家庭)利益出發，並不是為了任何公共利益。此外，申請方的司法覆核許可申請亦有相當的延誤，影響了相關部門的運作。 由於 (i) 建議答辯人(房屋署)只是香港房屋委員會(“房委會”)的執行機關; (ii) 房委會是根據香港法例第283章《房屋條例》第3條成立的法定機構; (iii) 本案件的遷出通知書, 是由房委會向申請人發出；及(iv) 房委會是根據《房屋條例》第19(1)(a)條獲授權發出通知書，因此本席正式命令，申請人須向房委會支付訟費，包括是次申請人申請更改暫准訟費令的訟費。 就訟費金額方面，建議答辯方須由本判決書日期起計七日內，將訟費陳述書存檔並送達申請人。申請人如要對訟費陳述書作回應，必須在收到訟費陳述書後七日內，以書面向法庭存檔並且送達建議答辯方律師。 然後，本席會以書面方式，經簡易程序，處理訟費金額。如果申請人未有及時存檔他的書面回應，本席亦會以書面方式，經簡易程序，處理訟費金額。 ( 李運騰 ) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 申請人：無律師代表，親自行事。 建議答辯人：范紀羅江律師行代表。