RE HALDER LILY

CACV 608/2018

[2019] HKCA 990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 550 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Extension of time for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 10 May 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 24 December 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and affirmation dated 10 July 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission in support of her application.

1.4  Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’), if an application for leave is refused by the Court of Appeal, the applicant has 28 days from the date of refusal to file his or her notice of motion.  The applicant is more than two months late.  Before the Court may grant an extension of time for leave to appeal, good grounds have to be shown by the applicant.  The relevant factors in considering whether extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party.

1.5  The delay in this case is substantial.  The applicant in her notice of motion and affirmation stated that the reason she was late was because she was sick.  No further explanation was provided as to what her sickness was.  She did not provide any medical certificate for her sickness.  She simply reiterated that her life was in danger.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.  We are not satisfied that a reasonable explanation has been given.  

1.6  As to the merits of the application, the applicant’s written submission lacked specificity and relevance.  The written submission is a pro forma document that is commonly used in this type of application.  It sets out broad and general terms legal principles, concepts and statutory provision for non‑refoulement or constitutional law cases.  They are simply legal propositions without more.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.   Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions.

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, we refuse to extend time and dismiss the notice of motion dated 10 July 2019.