RE WASINAH AND ANOTHER

CACV 154/2021

[2022] HKCA 758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1335 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

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 30 November 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 30 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicants 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 applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 13 December 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion the following:

‘ We would like to reject and review the decision made by the court and Torture Claim Appeal Board. They disregarded our dangerous situation.’

4.  The applicants failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge skeleton submissions within time.

II.  Our view

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.

6.  The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have 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 they have raised in their 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.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 13 December 2021 is dismissed.