Re Susi Setiawati

CACV 307/2021

[2022] HKCA 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1132 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of Judgment :  26 May 2022

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 30 November 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 June 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The 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.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 14 December 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.                  We will deal with the present application on paper without an oral hearing. 

4.The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following points :

1)  There was a lack of assistance to the applicant which was an error of law or procedure.

2)  The authorities have not enabled the applicant to understand the content of the judgments.

3)  The applicant was not given a translation of the judgment.

4)  The applicant could not provide full grounds of appeal if the decisions were not translated to her.

5)  The applicant did not understand the decisions of the courts and the Board.  The applicant had the help of a friend but that did not mean she understood the decisions.

6)  The friend’s help was limited, and there was a need for legal representation.

5.In her written submissions, she stated that she would like a reconsideration of her case, and to clarify what she meant by lack of legal representation.  As she did not have legal representation she did not understand legal jargon.  She was deprived of the right to make a proper appeal as there was a lack of language assistance.  She did not understand the Board’s decision and the judgment of the Court of First Instance.  It was her basic right to be able to understand them.  The Court owes a duty to litigants to assist them to understand the Court’s decisions.

II.  Our view

6.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) 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.

7.The 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 Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion or written submissions. 

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

9.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 14 December 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person