|
CACV 379/2021
[2022] HKCA 762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2786 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
WARIYANI WASITO |
Applicant |
____________________
Before : Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court
Date of Judgment : 26 May 2022
____________________
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
1. On 2 December 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 5 August 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 3 December 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following :
‘ I want to challenge the decision’
4. The applicant stated in her written submissions that there were errors made by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claim Appeal Board and she wants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
II. Our view
5. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
6. The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submissions.
7. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
III. Disposition
8. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 3 December 2021 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|