Re Supriyatun

CACV 484/2022, [2023] HKCA 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2549 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 17 May 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 658)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 14 December 2022 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 18 May 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, 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 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 did not set out any ground for the application.  It merely stated that the applicant did not get justice and wants to go the Court of Final Appeal.  

7.In her written submission, the applicant gave an outline of her personal and immigration background leading to the lodging of her non-refoulement claim, and reiterated that her fear of being harmed or killed by the loan shark.

8.The applicant has failed to provide any ground for her application or the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, let alone identifying any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  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 have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.