RE RUFINA MARIA

CACV 354/2020

[2021] HKCA 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 354 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2436/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 17 March 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 18 February 2021. In that judgment this Court (Lam VP and Yuen JA) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 28 July 2020 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant substantially reiterated her arguments in her previous written submissions to this Court regarding lack of legal and language assistance. This Court had already addressed and rejected those submissions in the judgment of 18 February 2021.

4.  Despite the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 17 March 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 18 March 2021, the Applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application. 

5.  The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of her claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment. 

6.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or otherwise which ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.