RE SHIN JEONG SHIK

CAMP 5/2022, [2023] HKCA 555

On Appeal From [2022] HKCA 1387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 5 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3018 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 October 2022, 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 23 September 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 1387). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 25 March 2021, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 761).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

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

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“Your Honour:

1．The Gout

My Gout is not quite minor. It’s really serious when I get the gout, I couldn’t sleep every night and I couldn’t walk and get on my knee joint, arms, fingers and elbows. Fingers too can’t spread out my fingers so I can’t get on the train too. And I’m not Hong Kong people. That’s why I can’t see public doctors. So medical bills is too expensive to me. 500 HKD is really big money to me. I’ve never lated to the court or Immigration. I got gout since 2014. So I saw doctors sometimes.

2．Submit

I submitted some medical bills. Thank you so much for reading.” (sic)

5.  In addition, he also attached various additional documents to his written submissions including Chinese medicine prescriptions dated 18 May 2022, 5 August 2022, 8 August 2022 and a medical bill dated 18 May 2022 (“the Additional Documents”).  He also attached the Chinese medicine prescription and medical bill dated 29 January 2022 which he had previously submitted to this Court during his appeal.

6.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 25 October 2022.  In those submissions, he stated:

“My Gout is really serious. So when I got it, I couldn’t walk. And hospital bills are very expensive. I have no money. 500HKD is really big money to me, I’m not a HK people. So it’s too hard to me in H.K. And I have no any lawyers. I can’t speak English. Just a little bit. So I submitted my hospital bills.” (sic)

7.  In our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are allegations in relation to his medical condition concerning his gout.  As stated at [16] of the Judgment, even taking his case at his highest, the Chinese medicine prescriptions and medical bills did not support the applicant’s allegation of gout in his knee-joint and fingers back in March 2021.  There is plainly no evidence to support his alleged reasons for delay before the Deputy Judge and his application for leave to apply for judicial review was without any merit.  More importantly, the applicant did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

8.  Further, the applicant failed to demonstrate how the Additional Documents could satisfy the rules in relation to admission of fresh evidence on appeal as set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 at p.1491[1], or even taking his case at its highest, how those documents had any relevance to his intended appeal where in the judgment we dismissed his application for lack of any prospect of success in merits.  Accordingly, we refuse to entertain the Additional Documents in the present application.

9.  In any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

10.  The applicant has therefore failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

11.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.