RE BANDOJO MARY GRACE MARIO

CAMP 493/2021

[2022] HKCA 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 493 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1912 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 12 April 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA)  judgment of 31 March 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 473). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 4 August 2020, by which the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 1850).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated:

“I would like to reject and review the court’s decision. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of her Notice of Motion.

6.  On 2 June 2022, the applicant filed a request for dismissal of appeal.  On the basis of the applicant’s application for dismissal alone, we will dismiss this application.

7.  In any event, for completeness, as further seen below, we also would have dismissed the applicant’s present application as her application is devoid of merit.  She did not identify any specific error in the Judgment.  Her assertion that the Court had disregarded her dangerous situation is vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular.  Clearly, it does not constitute a proper ground of appeal.  In any event, even taking it at its highest, her allegation remains fact-specific and does not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 April 2022 is dismissed.