RE DOMINGO MARY JEAN SUNIGA

CACV 606/2018

[2019] HKCA 931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 440 OF 2018)

_____________________________

_____________________________

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

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

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 17 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 19 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 affidavit dated 27 May 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4   The content of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  Trying our best, it seems the applicant is complaining that it is not true that her claims are without substance.  She said that she did not complain about the poor performance of her duty lawyer because she was afraid to be picked out.  The applicant repeated that she did not have time to address the bundles before the Board.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5   The applicant’s affidavit exhibited copies of the Court’s judgment and order.  She complained that the judges were wrong in law to hold that there was no state acquiescence and they had failed to account for current situation in the Philippines.  

1.6   The applicant had failed to comply with the Court’s directions of 28 May 2019 by failing to lodge her skeleton submissions.

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 and affidavit 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 or affidavit.

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, the notice of motion dated 27 May 2019 is dismissed.