RE PERERA ADDIN PRIYANGANI

CACV 374/2023, [2024] HKCA 1128

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1144 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 30 April 2024 ([2024] HKCA 329) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 9 November 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 2808), whereby the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 7 June 2024, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion out of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment. On the same day, the Applicant also filed an Affirmation in support.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.  In her Notice of Motion, the Applicant only stated:

“My leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I have big objection even the Court of Appeal to did not grant my leave. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.” (sic)

6.  In her Affirmation, she deposed:

“I want to apply Notice of Motion but my time is over. Please give me permission to appeal.” (sic)

7.  On 20 June 2024, the Applicant lodged written submissions, in which she repeated her apparent fears of returning to Sri Lanka by reason of her problem with a loan shark and her inability to repay the loan and interest, but failed to explain how these matters were relevant to her present application.

8.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, the Affirmation and the Applicant’s written submissions, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

9.  We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any explanation whatsoever for her delay in bringing the present leave application. We nonetheless go on to consider its merits.

10.  At the outset, her intended appeal has no merits at all. The matters raised in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general and bare allegations. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Her allegations are essentially a mere repetition of those submissions she had previously made before this court in her appeal, which we had already considered and rejected.

11.  The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the Judgment for dismissing her appeal and do not pinpoint any specific error in or raise any discernible grounds for disturbing the Judgment. Importantly, the Applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or indeed any other reason why her case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

12.  Accordingly, we refuse to give leave to the Applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed.