|
CACV 95/2021
[2022] HKCA 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1599 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
DIMACULANGAN MERILO EVAN |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court
Date of Judgment: 20 January 2022
________________________
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 6 August 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 P Li given on 3 March 2021 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 20 August 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant simply stated in her notice of motion that she wanted to challenge the decision.
4. In the applicant’s written submissions (which was lodged out of time despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 20 August 2021), she stated that if she went back to the Philippines she would be killed by her enemies. She stated she was scared and no one was helping her and the government is corrupt. She stated that her enemy had threatened her and threw stones to her window.
II. Legal principles
5. 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.
III. Our view
6. The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions 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.
7. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
IV. Disposition
8. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 20 August 2021 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Bebe Pui Ying Chu) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|