RE KAKOLI MAHMUDA HASNAT

CAMP 78/2017

[2018] HKCA 351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 78OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 236 OF 2017)

_______________________

_______________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 20 March 2018 the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down judgment refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 1 December 2017. The principal reasons for refusing extension were our finding that the applicant did not have a satisfactory explanation for the delay and our conclusion that the intended appeal had no merit.

2.  On 29 March 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, she disagreed that her appeal was without substance.  She said she had not complained about the duty lawyer due to fear of unfavourable treatment by the adjudicator.  She said she did not have enough time to access the bundle.

3.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant was directed to lodge submissions in support of her application.  However, she did not comply with the direction.

4.  In the judgment of 20 March 2018, the Court assessed the merits of the intended appeal by reference to the assessment of the credibility by the Board based on the facts of this case.  These are case and fact sensitive assessments.  Likewise, the assessment on the explanation for delay is also case specific.

5.  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.”

6.  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.  The applicant has not raised any 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.

7.  The Notice of Motion of 29 March 2018 is dismissed.