Re Marma Paiching

CACV 356/2021

[2023] HKCA 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 505 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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 K W Lung given on 9 July 2021 by 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 21 December 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion in summary the following :

‘ 1. ....Lack of assistance provided to me is an error of law or procedure, or evidence of procedural unfairness....

2. …the authorities, despite knowing my language incapability, have not made reasonable arrangements to enable me to understand the content of the judgments…

3. I do not understand the judgment completely as I was not given a translation…

4. …not having the Determination translated or read back to me, I could not have understood…I had to submit everything in English…

5.…oral hearings…were arranged with interpreters…such assistance should extend to understanding the judgment…

6. …not possible for …me or…my friends to identify error…without any legal representative…

7. …impossible…to point out specific legal errors…while not having legal assistance…

…’

4.The applicant lodged written submissions which stated the following in summary :

‘ 4…I require language and legal assistance…

5. It’s not true that I can understand the Board’s decision…I was not able to understand such legal jargons…I was not [assisted] by any legal representative…

6. The same extends to the judgment of the Court of First Instance…duty of care to self-presented litigants…

7…English is not my first language, I have no work right in Hong Kong (and therefore cannot hire proper help)....

8. …fairness…should not be limited to just the process of determination, but should rather extend to the Determination itself. It is a basic right of a litigant to understand what was decided against him…’

II.  Our view

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

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion. 

7.We have already answered the applicant’s complaints in his notice of motion and written submission in paragraphs §16-18 of our judgment.

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

III.  Disposition

9.For these reasons, we will dismiss the notice of motion filed on 21 December 2021.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person