RE GLORIA DUMARAN JAMERO

CACV 452/2020

[2022] HKCA 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 485 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 10 June 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and B Chu J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 23 July 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 16 June 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion that :

‘ I am lodging this motion to appeal for the decision made by the lower court and the torture claim appeal board with regards to unmeritorious claim I made’

4.  The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge skeleton submissions within time.

5.  By a ‘Request for Dismissal of Appeal dated 21 February 2022’, the applicant requested the dismissal of her notice of motion.  We will dismiss the notice of motion by reason of her request and also by the lack of merits of her application.  

II.      Our view

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion. 

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.     Disposition

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 16 June 2021 is dismissed.