|
CACV 478/2019
[2021] HKCA 521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 478 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1065 OF 2018)
____________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
SUNARTI |
Applicant
(Appellant)
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent
|
|
and |
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party
|
____________________
Before: Hon Chu, Au JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 8 June 2020
Date of Judgment: 21 May 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 26 May 2020, 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 21 May 2020 (“the Judgment”). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 27 September 2019 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.
3. 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.
4. In her Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated that she did not get justice. In her skeleton submissions of 8 June 2020 filed pursuant to the Court’s directions, the applicant only stated that she did not agree with the decisions. However, she did not advance any grounds against the Judgment.
5. In our view, the applicant’s application is without merit. The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in the Judgment.
6. In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. The statutory requirements under section 22 are plainly not met.
7. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|