RE DIVI DIAH NINGRUM

CACV 119/2018

[2018] HKCA 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 817 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 27 July 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 20 April 2018 refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 7 August 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. On 21 August 2018, the applicant put in a written submission to support her application.

3.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

4.  The Notice of Motion contains the following grounds:

(1)  The lack of legal and language assistance throughout her case is still on-going, and this is the reason why she put in different grounds for her appeal.  Since she was refused leave to apply for judicial review, she thought she should seek other means.

(2)  She stands by what she said in her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

(3)  She could not understand the judgments properly as they had not been read or translated to her.

(4)  She asks for a reconsideration of her case as it has not been determined fairly due to her lack of legal and language assistance.   

5.  The applicant’s written submission essentially repeats the grounds stated in the Notice of Motion.  Her core point is that she does not have legal and language assistance and this is unfair and has been detrimental to her case. 

6.  For the reasons set out below, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to meet the condition for granting leave as prescribed by section 22(1).

7.  Firstly, the matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are case-specific and relate only to the personal circumstances of the applicant.  They do not involve any question of great, general or public importance.

8.  Secondly, in respect of the new grounds that she raised in her appeal to this court, if she would like a reconsideration of her claim under those grounds, she should make the request to the Director who is the primary decision maker, and not to the court.  This point has been made clear in our judgment (see [13] to [15]). 

9.  Thirdly, with regard to the complaint of not having legal and language assistance, this had been considered by the Judge in [13] to [15] of the Form CALL-1.  We see no basis to disturb the reasons he gave for rejecting this complaint.   This ground is not reasonably arguable.

10.  Fourthly, there is no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

11.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.