RE LILIS JUNIYANTI

CACV 23/2021

[2021] HKCA 1189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2974 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 9 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Patrick Li given on 13 January 2021 refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 22 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, she has not put in any written submission to support her application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  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.

6.  The applicant argued in the notice of motion that she should be given leave to appeal in that the Torture Claims Appeal Board made its assessment without adequate consideration of the cultural background, and this is an act of procedural error.    

7.  The argument put forward in the notice of motion does not constitute viable ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Firstly, it relates solely to the circumstances of the applicant and her case.  It has not been demonstrated to be a question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Secondly, for the reasons we gave at [11] to [13] of our judgment, the ground is not reasonably arguable.       

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.