RE MARYANA

CACV 284/2018

[2019] HKCA 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 284 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 468/2017)

___________________

___________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 27 November 2018, the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 881) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 27 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1352) refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By her notice of motion dated 5 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that she was not satisfied with our judgment and that she could not return back to her own country because her life would be in danger there.

3.  In her written submissions lodged on 17 December 2018, apart from reiterating the basis of her claim, the applicant also complained about the lack of oral hearing before the Judge, the lack of legal representation and the lack of language assistance.

4.  It is factually incorrect to say that the applicant did not have an oral hearing before the Judge.  According to the court records, she did appear before the Judge twice: see [8] of our judgment.

5.  As for the appeal, oral hearing was first given but vacated due to the non-compliance with the unless order regarding the lodging of skeleton submissions.

6.  None of the matters set out in the notice of motion or the written submissions constitute reasonably arguable grounds of appeal.  We have explained in detail why the allegation of the lack of legal representation had no merit: see [16] of our judgment.  The lack of language assistance was not raised before and it cannot be a ground of appeal. 

7.  In any event, the grounds advanced by the applicant do not give rise to any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

8.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.