|
CACV 104/2018
[2018] HKCA 919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 104 OF 2018
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 419/2018)
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS
(Informer, witness of most incident and representative of
majority voters of Mr Leung Chung-hang, Sixtus and
representative of some voters of Ms Yau Wai-ching) |
Applicant |
and |
| |
The Magistrate-in-charge
of all case management matters
at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts |
1st Putative
Respondent |
| |
The Acting Principal Magistrate
of Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts
14 February 2018 – 28 February 2018 |
2nd Putative
Respondent |
| |
The Magistrate-in-charge of KCCC 2035/2017 |
3rd Putative
Respondent |
| |
HKSAR – Prosecution |
4th Putative
Respondent |
| |
Defence Counsel for D1 and D2 |
5th Putative
Respondent |
| and |
| |
LEUNG CHUNG-HANG, SIXTUS |
1st Putative
Interested Party |
| |
YAU WAI-CHING |
2nd Putative
Interested Party |
| |
YEUNG LAI-HONG |
3rd Putative
Interested Party |
| |
CHUNG SUET-YING |
4th Putative
Interested Party |
| |
CHEUNG TSZ-LUNG |
5th Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Poon JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 10 October 2018
Date of Judgment: 10 December 2018
_______________
JUDGMENT
_______________
Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. We dismissed this appeal on 17 September 2018.
2. By a notice of motion of 26 September 2018, the applicant sought urgent leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
3. In the Notice of Motion, she did not set out any questions of great, general public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. Directions were given by the Registrar for processing the application in accordance with Practice Direction 2.1.
5. We have read the notice of motion and the written submissions lodged by the applicant on 10 October 2018. Having done so, we cannot discern any question of great, general public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. Nor can we see any other ground to warrant this case to be submitted to that Court for determination.
6. In short, the applicant fails to satisfy us that her intended appeal has features which meet the requirements in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.
7. Further, as explained in our judgment of 17 September 2018, the intended appeal is totally devoid of merits.
8. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave and the notice of motion of 26 September 2018 is dismissed accordingly.
| (M H Lam) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Jeremy Poon) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|