ENDAH SRI HANDAYANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 271/2023, [2024] HKCA 758

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 1879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 988 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1.  This is the Applicant’s Notice of Motion filed on 19 June 2024 (“Notice of Motion”)  for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against the Judgment (“Judgment”)  of this court dated 29 January 2024 ([2024] HKCA 71)  by which her appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung ([2023] HKCFI 1879)  was dismissed.

2.  The details of the Applicant’s case and this court’s reasons for dismissing her appeal had been set out in the Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  Pursuant to s 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), the Notice of Motion should have been filed within 28 days from the date of the Judgment.  It is badly out of time.  There is an affidavit of the Applicant by which she seeks leave to apply for time extension for filing the Notice of Motion.  The only reason given by the Applicant for the lateness is that she did not receive a copy of the Judgment. 

4.  According to the record of the court, the Judgment was sent to the Applicant by post on 29 January 2024 to her current address.  The Order made pursuant to the Judgment was sent by post to the Applicant at the same address on 23 February 2024.  It would be quite surprising if neither of the documents was received by the Applicant.  There is no explanation by her on when or how she became aware of the Judgment.

5.  In the Notice of Motion, it is stated that: (a)  there are errors in the decisions made by the authorities; (b)  they relied on web news which were not officially recognised; and (c)  the Applicant’s case was not determined fairly. 

6.  In the Applicant’s written submissions, it is contended that: (a)  she did not have the assistance of interpretation service with regard to her BOR 2 risk claim; (b)  there was lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout her non-refoulement claim process and this court should investigate and correct the misbehaviour of the decision-making authorities; and (c)  the authorities and this court had been negligent and failed to uphold the duty of care to non-refoulement claimants like the Applicant.

7.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, leave to appeal to the CFA will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the CFA.

8.  The Applicant has failed to identify any question of general or pubic importance for the CFA to determine in accordance with s 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions.  Further, we do not see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb of the aforesaid provision.

9.  In the premises, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order on costs.  The extension of time application does not arise for determination.