Re Puji Lestari Tumijan and Another

CACV 496/2020

[2021] HKCA 906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2065 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 18 March 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 September 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 29 March 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.4The applicant stated in her notice of motion that there was some error in her case but without specifically stating the alleged error.  The applicant also stated that she disagreed with the decision of the Court as she believed that it was based on news on the web which is not real.  She believed she was in danger.

1.5The applicant lodged her written submissions on 26 April 2021.  She made a number of arguments including :

(1)    She does not understand how her claim was determined;

(2)    There was no language and legal assistance;

(3)    There was real procedural unfairness, such as her case being disposed of too quickly which is discriminatory.

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. 

3.2For the above paragraphs 1.5(1) and (2), the arguments are not reasonably arguable since it is trite that high standards of fairness do not mean that a claimant is absolutely entitled to legal representation at all stages of the legal proceedings ensuing: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14.

3.3For the above paragraph 1.1 (4) iii), proper time and care were made in the Director’s decision, the Board’s decision and the Decision of the Judge.  The applicant has not shown any proper evidential basis to suggest that those decisions were motivated by a desire to dispose of his case as quickly as they could.  This ground is utterly unmeritorious: Re Rajender Kumar [2021] HKCA 721 at [20].

3.4We 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 29 March 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person