|
CACV 198/2020
[2021] HKCA 312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 198 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1379/2018)
__________________________
| RE: |
EDRADAN JEANICE SARCO |
Applicant |
__________________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Au JA and G Lam J in Court
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 24 December 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 15 December 2020. In that judgment Lam VP and G Lam J dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 8 June 2020 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.
3. In her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of her application:
“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]
4. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s acknowledgment on 24 December 2020 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 29 December 2020, the Applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application.
5. Having considered the matters set out in the Notice of Motion, we are of the view that the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of her claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.
6. In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.
7. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.
| (M H Lam) |
(Thomas Au) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of |
| |
|
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|