RE MARIYANI SITI

CACV 141/2023, [2023] HKCA 1202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 770 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 22 August 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 991) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 5 May 2023 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 28 August 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the court, she has not put in any written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The Notice of Motion does not set out any grounds in support of the application. The applicant only stated that she did not agree with the decision and would like to challenge it.

7.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance matters. Nor has she put forward any viable grounds for the intended appeal. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.