Re Jamilah

CACV 188/2021

[2023] HKCA 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 290 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 21 September 2021, this Court handed down a decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 25 May 2020 in which he refused to grant extension of time for 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 decision. We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 21 November 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion in summary the following points :

‘ 1-The Learned Judge were wrong…for not having applied the principle of irrational to the decision made by the Director of Immigration..…

2-The Learned Judge were wrong… He was required to give reason justifying the decision…’

4.The applicant stated in her affirmation in summary the following points :

‘ …

2.  I am unrepresented and have no means to seek any proper legal advice.

3.  However, I understand that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal.

4.  I believe that the merits of this ground of appeal constitute sufficient reason justification for the Court to exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal.’

5.The applicant did not lodge written submissions by the stipulated deadline pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 21 November 2022.

6.On 13 February 2023, the Appeal’s Registry received a letter from the applicant stating that she wished to withdraw her notice of motion.  She stated that she wanted to go back to Indonesia.  She stated that her problem is solved.  She stated that it was safe for her to return.

II.      Our view

7.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.

8.The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and affirmation 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 and affirmation. 

9.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

10.For these reasons, we will in any event dismiss the notice of motion filed on 21 November 2022 notwithstanding the applicant’s request to withdraw her notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person