Re Castillo Raquel Adona and Another

CACV 508/2021

[2022] HKCA 1584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1170 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 20 July 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1053)  dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 5 November 2021 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

2.On 3 August 2022, the applicants (acting by the 1^st 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 Appeal, they have 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 applicants’ 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 states that: “We would like to reject and review the decision made by the court.  They disregard our dangerous situation.”

7.What was stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute viable grounds for the intended appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Further, for the reasons we gave in [19] to [27] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.    

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

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

The 1^st and 2^nd applicants, unrepresented, acting in person.