Re Mariana

CACV 298/2020

[2021] HKCA 883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1918 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 19 March 2021, this Court (Cheung JA, B Chu and ST Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 15 July 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2The facts and issues of the 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 filed on 26 March 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion that we were wrong in law in not applying the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness.

1.4The applicant lodged her written submissions on 7 April 2021.  She cited general non-refoulement legal principles and statutory reference without detailing how those rules related to the particulars of her case.

1.5We will deal with the application on paper.

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 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 26 March 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person