Re Moni Rohima Khatun

CACV 101/2019

[2019] HKCA 1145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 666 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung, Yuen and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions:  1 August 2019

Date of Decision:  15 October 2019

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 2 July 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 21 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 18 July 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4It is difficult to follow the contents of the applicant’s notice of motion.  It seems that the applicant is saying that her life is still in danger: her ex-husband is still searching for her and trying to kill her and she fears for her life.  She then repeats the procedural history of her case and the various applications she made to the Court.  She claims that her case is reasonably arguable and that it has significant public importance, without giving particulars.  She also repeats the factual background information of her case.

1.5The applicant’s written submission is equally difficult to follow.  It contained repetition of the contents of the notice of motion.

1.6At page 6 (paragraph 14), she complained that the Judge’s ‘reasoning’ at paragraphs 15 to 18 ‘fell short of rigorous examination…’.  We note, however, paragraphs 15 to 18 of the Judge’s decision are not reasons as such but a summary by him of the factual background of the case.

1.7Page 5 (paragraph 13) and page 6 to page 13 of the applicant’s written submissions are her complaints against the Board, none of which were complaints against the Judge.

1.8She produced two documents (exhibits A-1 and A-2) in the Bengali language without providing an English translation. We have held in Quintero Hasle Calise [2018] HKCA 832 at paragraphs [22]-[23] that communications with the Court should be restricted to either in the English or Chinese language in accordance with section 3(1) of the Official Languages Ordinance (Cap. 5). The applicant has failed to comply with the requirement.  In any event, we have obtained the English translation of these exhibits from the Court Language Section on 21 August 2019.  We have perused the exhibits and considered their contents.  The exhibits are new evidence or arguments that have not been ventilated in the Court below.  Neither has leave been obtained for the admission of this evidence.  We will not entertain new arguments which are fact sensitive and have not been considered below: United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [40]-[41].

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘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.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion 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 there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion or written submissions.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 18 July 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person