RE PALANGDOSAN MARINA LIPAWEN

CAMP 5/2020

[2020] HKCA 619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 5 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 495/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 June 2020, the Applicant filed her Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Lam VP and Au JA) judgment of 11 June 2020 (“the Main Judgment”). In the Main Judgment we refused to extend time to the Applicant to bring an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam of 30 July 2019.

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.  The following are the grounds set out in her Notice of Motion:

“ 1.  In my Appeal Judgement the honourable Judge’s explained why my leave to Appeal is not acceptable for further reasons. I would always respect the Decision given by the Honourable Judge’s, but i would only like to say my claim is true, and what i was stated in my written submission for supporting my Application for delay, I am apologized for my mistake, and seek to grant leave to Appeal for my Non-refoulement claim.

2.  In my Appeal Judgement, the Honourable Judge’s did not consider my fear in my claim, why i would not return to my country.” [sic]

4.  On 3 July 2020 the Applicant lodged her written submissions, which largely focused on explaining her delay in bringing her intended appeal to this Court.  As we had proceeded in the Main Judgment that the delay was excusable, these submissions are not germane to the present application, which has to be predicated upon arguable ground demonstrating error in the Main Judgment. 

5.  In the penultimate and final paragraphs of her submissions the Applicant copied verbatim from her written submissions of 9 March 2020 that had already been considered and rejected by this Court in the Main Judgment. 

6.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor her submissions pinpoints any error of law or other ground for disturbing our decision in the Main Judgment.  The Applicant simply failed to engage with the reasons for the refusal to extend time.  There is no reasonably arguable ground for appeal which could meet the threshold in Section 22(1)(b).

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA. We would dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.