RE YEASHMIN

CACV 147/2019

[2019] HKCA 1430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 147 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 820/2018)

________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 16 August 2019, the Court (Lam VP and McWalters JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 910) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) dated 18 March 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 679). In the latter decision, the Judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion filed on 3 September 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, she referred to the procedural history of the proceedings, challenged various findings of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and reiterated the factual background of her claim.  She also asserted that the appeal was of significant public importance because it involved the standard and approach concerning the assessment of evidence and credibility.  She did not supply particulars in support of this assertion.

3.  Notwithstanding that she had been directed to do so, she did not lodge any written submission in support of this application.

4.  At [15] – [19] of the judgment, the Court explained why the applicant’s grounds of appeal could not justify a reversal of the Judge’s decision.  In this application, the applicant does not engage with the Court’s reasons in dismissing the appeal. 

5.  In our view, nothing in the notice of motion constitutes valid grounds of appeal.

6.  Further, the applicant’s application does not meet the statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Notwithstanding her bare assertion to the contrary, we do not accept that she has raised any question of great general or public importance for submission to the Court of Final Appeal for consideration.  Nor do we see any reason for leave to be granted under the “or otherwise” limb.  

7.  Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.