RE AKHI

CAMP 367/2021

[2022] HKCA 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 367 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3003 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 15 December 2021, this Court handed down our judgment ([2021] HKCA 1866) refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 20 May 2021 which refused to give her leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 30 December 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, she has not put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The notice of motion stated that the applicant could not accept our decision because the decision maker just relied on simple hearsay, and the decision was irrational, in disregard of her safety, and was unfair. It was also said that the court might not have analysed her summons and the problem in her home country, and the decision has the effect of rendering her liable to be removed from Hong Kong.    

7.  We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of motion do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, it has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the notice of motion is dismissed.