RE DINH THI QUYEN

CAMP 400/2021

[2022] HKCA 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 400 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2879 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1688) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 6 August 2020 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 25 November 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support her application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion stated that the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principle of irrationality and also the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director of Immigration.

7.  The written submission quoted extensively from [43] to [45], and [51] of the judgment in Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, and said that the high standard of fairness should apply because the decision has the effect of finally disposing of the applicant’s claim.

8.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.