Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 123/2018

[2019] HKCA 605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 123 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 63 OF 2016)

_______________

BETWEEN
	CHAN TSUI YAN	Applicant
	and
	SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD	Respondent
	CHAU SHUI HOI MALINA	1^st Interested Party
	NG WANG TSANG	2^nd Interested Party
	NG YUEN CHING WILLIS	3^rd Interested Party

_______________

Before:

Hon Kwan VP, Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	15 April 2019, 29 April 2019, 6 May 2019
Date of Judgment:	31 May 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.This court handed down judgment on 11 March 2019 ([2019] HKCA 279) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the judgment of Hon Lok J (“the judge”) given on 19 April 2018 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Respondent’s decision of 9 December 2015. The issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, have been set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The Applicant applied by a Notice of Motion filed on 2 April 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He lodged his written submissions on 15 April and 6 May 2019 while the Respondent filed its submissions in opposition on 29 April 2019. The 1^st Interested Party (“IP1”) did not file submissions.

3.The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 4 April 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.The applicant set out 5 grounds in his Notice of Motion which are summarized as follows:

(1)   If IP1 had not been guilty of misconduct, the organization (the Society of Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention) would not have apologized or issued an oral warning to her for which she was required to sign a written record (“Ground (1)”)

(2)   It was inappropriate for IP1’s counsel to rely on the English authority of Surrey Police Authority v Beckett [2002] ICR 257) to contend that IP1 could not be “tried” after she had left employment (“Ground (2)”)

(3)   The Applicant gave examples of 3 government officials, viz. Donald Tsang, Rafael Hui, and Franklin Chu, who were tried after they left the government (“Ground (3)”)

(4)   The Respondent was wrong not to have considered the paper shredding allegation, and there were 2 copies of the Report which contained discrepancies and were false documents used to cover up IP1’s misconduct. (“Ground (4)”)

(5)   The Applicant said he did not rely the false documents in his Form 86 because he received them from Li & Lai, his former solicitors, after he filed his Form 86. (“Ground (5)”)

5.In the Applicant’s written submissions, he submitted (among other things) that IP1’s misconduct and that the false documents related to a question of great general or public importance, or gave rise to exceptional circumstances, such that leave should be granted under the “or otherwise” limb of s.22(1)(b) Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.

6.Section 22(1)(b) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.The Applicant’s Grounds (1), (4) and (5) are fact-sensitive and do not raise any question of great general or public importance. As we explained in paragraph 19.1 of our Judgment, the powers of a court in judicial review proceedings are limited, particularly in respect of the fact-finding exercise.

8.With respect to Grounds (2) and (3), Miss Chow had accepted at the hearing of the appeal that this case is distinguishable from the Surrey Police Board case (see paragraph 24.1 of our Judgment). The judge had discussed IP1’s submission based on this case as a secondary point. This court did not think it necessary to express a view on whether the judge’s view was correct (see paragraph 24.2 of our Judgment). As it did not form a part of our Judgment, leave should not be given either.

9.In conclusion, the Applicant fails on all grounds.

10.The Notice of Motion dated 2 April 2019 is accordingly dismissed with costs to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent. The Respondent should file and serve on the Applicant a statement of costs within 7 days for the purpose of summary assessment of costs. If the Applicant has any objections, he should file and serve his objections within 14 days after receiving the statement. The court will then assess the costs on paper.