RE BIMALA DANGOL MAHARJAN

CACV 7/2018

[2018] HKCA 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 42 OF 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

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

1.  This Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down the judgment dismissing the appeal on 24 April 2018.

2.  On 30 April 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, she said she was not aware of the requirement to lodge skeleton argument and she thought she would explain herself at the oral hearing.

3.  The Court had given her an oral hearing on 20 April 2018.  However, she did not attend the hearing and up to now she offered no explanation for her absence from that hearing.  The Court therefore proceeded to deal with her appeal based on the materials placed before us.

4.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions (written in English) in support of her application on 23 May 2018.  Two documents were lodged: one by way of submissions for the Notice of Motion; one by way of skeleton argument “for hearing scheduled on 24 April 2018”.

5.  There was no hearing scheduled on 24 April 2018.  The oral hearing of the appeal was scheduled and took place on 20 April 2018.  She had been notified of that hearing by a notice of 15 February 2018. As mentioned, she did not attend the hearing.

6.  She alleged she did not have the necessary assistance to prepare the written submissions in English and she failed to understand the requirement for lodging skeleton submissions.  In addition to Practice Direction 4.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had given her express detailed directions on lodging skeleton submissions on 5 February 2018.  We do not accept this assertion as she did not appear to have difficulty to lodge her Notice of Appeal, her Notice of Motion and various documents (all prepared in English) within time.  She also had no difficulty in complying with the directions to lodge written submissions in support of her Notice of Motion.  

7.  Having read her written submissions lodged on 23 May 2018, we are of the view that the Notice of Motion can be processed on the papers without any oral hearing.

8.  In the judgment of 24 April 2018, the Court assessed the merits of the appeal by reference to the facts of this case.  This was a case and fact sensitive assessment.  For the reasons given, the appeal was wholly devoid of merit.  There is nothing in the written submissions of 23 May 2018 which can take the applicant’s case further.

9.  The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

10.  Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.  There is no question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.