Ma Mei Mei v Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Ltd & Town Planning Board [2025] HKCFI 5772 (28.11.2025)
In a second Judicial Review against the Tai Hang Sai Estate redevelopment, the Court of First Instance dismissed a resident’s challenge. Coleman J described the application as “utterly hopeless” and “utterly devoid of merit,” rejected every ground advanced, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of both putative respondents.
Tai Hang Sai Estate is Hong Kong’s only privately owned subsidised housing estate. Calls for its redevelopment began more than a decade ago. After an initial planning application in 2016 that was approved but not pursued, the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (“HKSHC”) and the Urban Renewal Authority submitted a new application to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) in October 2021. The TPB granted approval in December 2021 subject to various advisory clauses.
The applicant filed an application for leave to bring judicial review in August 2025 and later amended her claim. The Form 86 and amended Form 86 were heavily criticised by the Court for being prolix, inconsistent and confusing. They appeared to have been drafted without any coherent link between the impugned decisions, the grounds advanced and the relief sought.
The applicant attempted to challenge HKSHC’s decision to lodge the planning application in 2021. This was roundly rejected by the Court.
In particular, as previously held in Leung Ah Duen v The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited [2025] HKCFI 3715 (see our earlier article here), HKSHC is a private company acting as a private landlord. Its decision to redevelop its own property, including its decision to apply for planning permission, is not a public law act and cannot be the subject of judicial review.
The learned judge added that even if it were reviewable, the decision to make a planning application is merely an intermediate administrative step and has no legal consequence once approval has been granted. The grounds pleaded thus did not relate to the impugned decision meaningfully, and many allegations were factually incorrect or irrelevant to the applicant’s circumstances.
Turning to costs, the Court accepted the Putative Respondents’ submissions and departed from the usual practice of making no order at the leave stage. Coleman J ordered the applicant to pay the costs of both HKSHC and the TPB, citing the hopeless nature of the application, wasted procedural time, repeated adjournment attempts, poor drafting of court documents, and persistence with the claim long after its futility became apparent.
Lam v Administrative Appeals Board and Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data [2025] HKCFI 5525 (1.12.2025)
The applicant had used a mobile number with a mobile operator (Operator 1) and had once registered that number at a promotional event of another operator (Operator 2). In 2022, he received WhatsApp marketing messages from Operator 2 and, during a store visit, was told that his number was recognised as an Operator 1 subscriber line.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data as to whether a telecom operator (Operator 2) had held or used “personal data” belonging to him.
The applicant thus suspected that Operator 2 had obtained Operator 1’s customer list and lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner accordingly. After initial inquiries, the Privacy Commissioner concluded that Operator 2 only had two pieces of information at the relevant time: the applicant’s mobile number and the fact that the number belonged to an Operator 1 subscriber. As neither element enabled the identification of the applicant as an individual, the Commissioner determined that Operator 2 did not possess “personal data” within the meaning of Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) and declined to investigate further. No evidence supported the allegation that Operator 2 had accessed any Operator 1 customer list.
The applicant hence appealed to the Administrative Appeals Board. Based on the evidence, including explanations from Operator 2 and system screenshots, the Board found that Operator 2 held no additional information such as the applicant’s name, contract details, or identity-related data. Masked “XXXXX” fields shown in the screenshot were assessed to be Operator 2’s own system information rather than hidden personal data. The Board thus dismissed the appeal.
The applicant then applied for leave to bring judicial review, advancing six grounds: failure to consider relevant matters, lack of fairness, irrationality, consideration of irrelevant factors, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and alleged procedural unfairness relating to potential conflicts of interest. Deputy High Cout Judge Gary CC Lam held that none of these grounds were reasonably arguable. The learned Deputy Judge found the Board’s fact‑finding and analysis lawful and rational, noted that the applicant had chosen not to attend the hearing before the Board, and confirmed that there was no evidence supporting any conflict‑of‑interest assertion as to the composition of the Board.
In dismissing the application, the Court ordered the applicant to bear the Privacy Commissioner’s costs. The Court specifically reminded potential applicants that even though leave to bring judicial review is an ex parte application, but based on various circumstances (e.g. lack of evidence, lack of precision, failure to disclose all relevant information, Court’s request for putative respondents’ assistance), applicants may have to bear the costs of any putative respondent/interested party. In this particular case, the Court considered that the Commissioner’s assistance was helpful and necessary, and therefore her costs are ordered to be borne by the applicant.
Key Takeaway
The twin decisions provide a firm reminder to applicants of the Court’s unwillingness to entertain late, unfocused or meritless challenges and reiterate the need for focused and properly drafted grounds of judicial review, for otherwise adverse cost orders may be made even in an ex parte application.
Michael Lok and Paul Law acted for the 1st Putative Respondent, Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation, in [2025] HKCFI 5772. They were led by Jin Pao SC (of Temple Chambers) in the earlier judicial review and by Patrick Fung SC in the related land recovery proceedings.
Michael Lok and Regina Yip acted for the Putative Interested Party, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, in [2025] HKCFI 5525.
Judgment of [2025] HKCFI 5772 is available at https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=174883&currpage=T
Judgment of judicial review of [2025] HKCFI 3715 is available at https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=171640&currpage=T
Judgment of [2025] HKCFI 5525 is available at https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=174955&currpage=T
