Re Do Thi Ha

CAMP 220/2022

[2022] HKCA 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MIXCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 220 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 198 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 16 September 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 3 August 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1137) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 18 November 2021 refusing to grant her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 8 August 2022, 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, she has not put in any written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the 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.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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 only stated that the applicant wants to challenge this Court’s decision, but did not set out any supporting grounds for doing so. Importantly, it did not set out any question of great general or public importance for the determination by the Court of Final Appeal, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. 

7.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.