Re Supriatik

CACV 548/2020

[2021] HKCA 907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 538 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 22 April 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) dismissed the applicant’s notice of appeal by reason of the applicant’s failure to comply with our Unless Order on 12 April 2021 to lodge two sets of appeal bundle and a supplemental notice of appeal on or before 21 April 2021.

1.2The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 6 May 2021, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion that she wanted to challenge the decision.  No further particulars were provided.

1.3The applicant lodged her written submissions on 20 May 2021.  The applicant repeated factual matters that have been dealt with before the Board and the Director.  It is trite that these are matters within the province of the Board and the Director.

1.4Pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 9 of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 7 May 2021, we will proceed to deal with the applicant’s notice of motion directly 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 6 May 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person