RE NIKMATURODIYAH

CAMP 56/2021

[2021] HKCA 1163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 56 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 782 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 23 June 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 4 June 2020 refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 29 June 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 notice of motion did not set out any ground for the application.  It merely stated that the applicant wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal “for the great interest of the oppressed people”. 

7.  What was stated in notice of motion does not constitute proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b).       

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.