Re Lapanati Yulas

CACV 620/2020

[2021] HKCA 1240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1959 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Decision : 31 August 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 10 June 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 November 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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 22 July 2021 (“Notice of Motion”), for leave to appeal out of time, against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant stated in her affirmation of 22 July 2021 that she did not get “the letter”. Presumably, the letter she referred to was the letter sent to her on 10 June 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court enclosing a copy of our judgment. The letter was sent to the address of the applicant which was confirmed by her during the hearing before us.  There was no proper explanation or any valid reason as to why she did not receive it.

1.5On 22 July 2021, the applicant signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the directions given to her by the Registrar of Civil Appeal including that she should on or before 5 August 2021 lodge with the court 2 sets of written submissions to support her Notice of Motion.  She only lodged her written submissions on 19 August 2021 with no explanations as to why she was late.

1.6In her Notice of Motion, all the applicants stated was that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected her claim, and that the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed her leave to apply for judicial review. She said she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice.  No grounds were stated by her in the Notice of Motion.  In her written submissions, she repeated amongst other things, that she was a Muslim and married a Christian man and converted to be a Christian, and that her own family members and villagers wanted to kill her. She said in Indonesia, religious faith is a big matter.

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 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 what is stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion. 

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 22 July 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person