RE OTAD JENNY BERGONIO AND ANOTHER

CACV 409/2020

[2021] HKCA 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 409 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 606/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 8 April 2021, the 1^st Applicant, for herself and the 2^nd Applicant, filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 29 March 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the 1^st Applicant raised the following matters in support of this application:

“ I would like to reject and review the decision made by TCAB and the high Court as I had given proof that I was severely injured and with the violent history of my former husband, I will be in great danger should I be returned to Philippines. Yet TCAB’s assessment is fraught with error as it has not been assessing my case based on the local context in Philippines. It disregard my situation in Philippines.” [sic]

4.  The Applicants lodged their written submissions on 19 April 2021. Those submissions are identical to their submissions in their substantive appeal which the Court had already addressed and rejected in the judgment of 29 March 2021.

5.  The Applicants’ submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 29 March 2021 for dismissing their substantive appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment.  

6.  We do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or otherwise which ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicants’ Notice of Motion accordingly.