CHING KIT MING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

CACV 220/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3059 OF 2001)

____________________________________

_______________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1 On 25 September 2002 this Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant against a decision of Hartmann J by which he refused the appellant leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Hospital Authority to terminate her employment as a medical officer with Castle Peak Hospital. The appellant now seeks from this Court leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2 We should in passing explain that the text of her present application dated 21 October 2002 was submitted on a floppy disc, and that in a covering letter she asked that, for security reasons, she be permitted to submit it in that form. My own directions were sought and I took the view that the disc was acceptable and that the content be downloaded, although I did not then appreciate as I should that there was a more fundamental question arising from the fact that the appellant had labeled the disc "For Appeal Judges Only". On 26 November 2002 a fax was sent to the appellant which, we understand, she only received this morning, saying that it was contradictory to proper practice for us to consider grounds or submissions in support, not copied to the respondent and that we would not have regard to the contents of the disc.

3 However this morning we noticed the content of section 27 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, as a result of which we decided that we would, even in the absence of notice to the respondent, hear what Dr Ching had to say in support of the application for leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal, and decide then what course to take. Dr Ching's consequent concern that she wished for time to address the letter of 26 November 2002 became otiose and we explained this to Dr Ching, in other words, that exercising our power under section 27, we were prepared to hear her application, notwithstanding the failure to serve the respondent.

4 We have in the event considered the contents of the floppy disc that was served and which we downloaded, and we have offered Dr Ching an opportunity to expand on those grounds should she so wish this morning. She has said that she has nothing to add, in public, to those grounds of the application.

5 In effect she seeks to repeat the second ground of her appeal to which we make reference in the judgment, and with which we deal in that judgment. We do not see that any question of great general or public importance arises, nor do we see that there is any other reason why her case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for its decision. Accordingly, her application for leave is refused.