RE JUMIRAH

CAMP 409/2021

[2022] HKCA 925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 409 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1834 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 28 February 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA)  judgment of 17 February 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 230). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 13 July 2020, by which the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 1538).

2.  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.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, 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.

3.  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.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT I WISH THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL WILL CONSIDER MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 3 May 2022.  In her written submissions, she repeated the factual background of her non-refoulement claim and asserted that she failed to get any letter from the Court.  She asserted that it was her right to appeal and requested the Court of Appeal to extend time for her to bring her appeal.

6.  In our view, her application is devoid of merit.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As to her contention of failing to receive the letter from the Court, we had already considered and rejected her submissions at [15] of the Judgment.  She did not point out any error in the Judgment.  Accordingly, as the applicant failed to advance any proper grounds of appeal, her application must be dismissed on this basis alone.

7.  In any event, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 28 February 2022 is dismissed.