RE CHEN HSIU YING

CACV 116/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 71 OF 2016)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 23 August 2016, we handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Au J given on 9 May 2016 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion filed on 23 September 2016, the applicant applies for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  The applicant has filed two affirmations on 23 and 26 September 2016 in support of her notice of motion.  She has also on 11 October 2016 put in a written submission, which is a revised version of the written submission contained in exhibit I to her 23 September 2016 affirmation.

4.  The putative respondent, the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”), who is not yet a party to these proceedings[1], is not required to, and has understandably not put in any submission.

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 given in a civil matter 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.  Whether in the notice of motion or the written submissions, the applicant has not identified any question or issue that she seeks to submit to the Court of Final Appeal for determination, let alone any question of great general or public importance.

7.  The applicant only repeats her dissatisfactions over the suspension of her welfare payments, and her complaints against SWD and its staff.  She also raises new complaints against staff of Caritas and Housing Authority and security guards of her housing estate. She further puts in new materials relating to the decision of the Housing Authority to terminate her tenancy on account of delays in paying rent.   

8.  Not only are these matters not relevant to the judicial review application that the applicant has wanted to bring, they are also irrelevant to the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

9.  The applicant has not demonstrated that her intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  There is also no other reason for submitting her case to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  The condition for giving leave to appeal is not met.

10.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.