RE SITI RODIYAH

CACV 430/2021

[2022] HKCA 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 430 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 8 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.  Before the court is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment of this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) dated 6 December 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1854) (“Judgment”).

2.  By the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 2 September 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 2586) (“Judge’s Decision”) refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision given by the Torture Claims Appeal Board on 10 December 2018 concerning her non-refoulement claim (“Claim”).

Paper disposal appropriate

3.  Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. Having considered the material available to us, we agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

4.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicants’ contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

5.  In the notice of motion filed herein on 8 December 2021, the applicant simply stated: “want to challenge the decision”.

6.  On 17 December 2021, the applicant lodged written submission by which she (1) reiterated that she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper to protect herself from threats to her life that she faced in Indonesia; and (2) expressed her wish to further appeal to the CFA.

Discussion

7.  The allegations upon which the Claim was made, the issues raised by the appeal from the Judge’s Decision and our reasons for dismissing the same have been set out in the Judgment and will not be repeated here.

8.  The applicant made no attempt whatsoever in either the notice of motion or the written submission to engage the reasons we have given in [19] to [23] of the Judgment for dismissing her appeal against the Judge’s Decision.

9.  In our view, the applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance.

10.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

Disposition

11.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.