RE CALING ANALIZA LIMON

CACV 264/2021

[2022] HKCA 1046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 264 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2795 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the court):

1.  On 12 April 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA)  judgment of 4 March 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 345). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 11 May 2021, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Decision”)  ([2021] HKCFI 1346).

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:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court. They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, she did not lodge any written submissions.

6.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion are vague and bare assertions and do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.  She also did not identify any specific particulars in support of her allegation that the Court disregarded her dangerous situation in the Judgment.  Her intended appeal must fail on this basis alone.

7.  In any event, the applicant’s contentions are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, she 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 applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 April 2022 is dismissed.