|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2007
(ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DENTAL COUNCIL
OF HONG KONG MADE ON APRIL 19, 2007)
----------------------
BETWEEN
| |
Dr YOUNG YAU YAU, CECILIA |
Appellant |
| |
And |
|
| |
THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG |
Respondent |
----------------------
Before: Hon Stock JA, Le Pichon JA and A Cheung J in Court
Date of Hearing: 21 May 2009
Date of Judgment: 21 May 2009
--------------------------
J U D G M E N T
------------------------
Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. On 8 July 2008 we dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the Dental Council dated 19 April 2007 by which she had been found guilty of unprofessional conduct.
2. By notice of motion dated 23 September 2008 the appellant seeks leave under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
3. She has asked for an adjournment of this hearing of her notice of motion. She previously secured an adjournment and in the circumstances put to us both in writing and orally we have seen no warrant for an adjournment.
4. The appellant acts in person and her notice of motion asserts that:
“The allegations/charges were not particularized, it is an importance (sic) issue to the general public. The Dental Council wrongly used an improper instrument panalipse to conclude the molars were mesialized. This is a fundamental concept of instrument used.”
5. In her oral submissions today she adds that she was not properly heard by the Council and that itself is, she contends, a further ground of importance to the general public.
6. There are exhibited to an affidavit in support of the motion extensive submissions which we have read.
7. The notice of motion is out of time. Only after the respondent pointed that out did the appellant forward to the court a submission, dated 19 May 2009, with an explanation for the delay the accuracy of which is susceptible to verification but which we have not had time to check. We are however prepared to assume the question of time in her favour.
8. The grounds put forward by the appellant do not in our judgment warrant the exercise of our discretion under section 22(1)(b). The allegation about particularization is of no merit and, further, she advances a lengthy argument as to the merits of the Council’s decision, presumably thereby proposing to invite the Court of Final Appeal to revisit that issue.
9. She further raises an entirely new issue, namely, a suggestion that she saw the Council’s legal adviser retire with the Council when it was deliberating its decision. This point is no doubt prompted by the decision of this Court, differently constituted, in Dr Chan Hei Ling Helen v The Medical Council of Hong Kong CACV 403 of 2006, 30 April 2009, unreported.
10. The new ground does not arise from our decision of 8 July 2008. Further, the fact of the retirement of the adviser was, so we are told by the appellant, known by her at the time of the hearing and the point was not taken on appeal to this Court.
11. The motion is therefore denied.
12. The costs of the motion will be to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.
(Frank Stock)
Justice of Appeal |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
(Andrew Cheung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Appellant in person
Mr Wesley W. C. Wong, DPGC and Mr Mark Chan, SGC, of Department of Justice for the Respondent
|