Perater Alice Parcon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of CACV 119/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 September 2022.
1. On 2 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of Madam Justice Anna Lai dated 15 March 2022 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 119/2022 [2022] HKCA 1317 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 119 OF 2022 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 559 OF 2019) ________________________
________________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 2 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of Madam Justice Anna Lai dated 15 March 2022 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 15 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 29 August 2022, she repeats her complaints about the decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office, but has failed to identify any specific error in the CA Judgment. 4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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. 5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 119/2022