Re Phulmati Lama

CAMP 321/2021

[2021] HKCA 1756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 321 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1349 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 26 November 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 25 October 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1542) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 20 April 2021 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 26 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged a written submission.

3.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The Notice of Motion merely stated that the applicant wants to challenge the decision.  It has not set out any ground to support the intended appeal.   

7.The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person