RE ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ

CACV 10/2022, [2023] HKCA 730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 163 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 11 April 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 415) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 31 December 2021 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On the same day, 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 Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s 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 have 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 only stated that the judgments of the Court of First Instance and this Court are not good for the applicant, and he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal. It has not set out any ground in support of the application.

7.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.