Re Suyanti and Another

CAMP 252/2019

[2020] HKCA 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 252 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 216/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  30 July 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 11 June 2020, the 1^st Applicant filed on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, the 2^nd Applicant, a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Lam VP and Au JA) judgment of 28 May 2020. In that judgment, we refused to grant extension of time to the Applicants to appeal against the decision of 21 December 2018 of the Court of First Instance.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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.

3.Further, this Court will examine if there is any reasonably arguable ground to support the application before exercising the discretion to grant leave.

4.The following grounds for leave to appeal were set out in the Notice of Motion:

“ The claims that the Judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

On the strength of the grounds not made complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.” [sic]

5.In her supporting affirmation of 11 June 2020, the 1^st Applicant advanced the following additional grounds:

“ (1)  The Honourable Judges from the Court were wrong in law in holding there was no state acquiescence or involvement.

(2)  The Honourable Judges from the Court also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Indonesia.”

6.The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and the 1^st Applicant’s affirmation are bare assertions or do not disclose any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal. In any event, no question of great general or public importance has been raised and there is no other reason that the matter ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision. 

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.  We dismiss the Notice of Motion accordingly.

Applicants acting in person