RE MARINA

CACV 140/2021

[2022] HKCA 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 841 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 27 September 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chow JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 19 March 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 8 October 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion :

‘ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Leave for Judicial Review and the Appeal; and

2.   The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director.’

4.  In her written submissions, she stated general legal principles of non-refoulement without specifying how those principles relate to the particulars of her case.

5.  We will deal with the present application on paper without an oral hearing.

II.  Our view

6.  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.

7.  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 or written submissions. 

8.  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

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 8 October 2021 is dismissed.