Re Quintero Hasle Calise

CAMP 104/2018

[2019] HKCA 1114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 104 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1076 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Pang JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 16 November 2018, this Court handed down a decision dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 4 May 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the application before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in our said decision.  We will not repeat them.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and an affidavit filed on 5 August 2019, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  Contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 6 August 2019, the applicant has also filed written submissions that are both out of time (by almost a month) and in a language other than the official languages (Tagalog).

4.Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’), if an application for extension of time to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal, the applicant has 28 days from the date of refusal to file his or her notice of motion.  The applicant is more than eight months late.  The delay is very substantial.  Before the Court may grant an extension of time, good grounds have to be shown by the applicant, bearing in mind that she has already had her day in court twice when she makes the present application.  The relevant factors in considering whether extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party.

5.It is stated in the notice of motion :

‘The decision is unreasonable’

6.It is stated in the applicant’s affidavit that the reason she was late in her application was because she “don’t know how to do and no body help me”.

7.The applicant’s written submissions, translated into English for us by the Court Language Section, also discloses no grounds of appeal.  All that is stated is that the applicant wanted to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal with hopes that the appeal would be granted.  She promised to obey Hong Kong Laws and would not run into trouble. She said she did not know what to write and did not know if her written submissions were correct.

8.Under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO, 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.

9.The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion, affidavit and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is it apparent to us that there is any such question in her notice of motion, affidavit and written submissions.

10.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.As the proposed appeal has no prospect of success, we refuse to extend time and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 5 August 2019.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person