Re Belza Dionne Salvilla

CACV 481/2022, [2023] HKCA 1068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 974 OF 2022)

__________________________

__________________________

___________________

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 our judgment ([2023] HKCA 659) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung (“the Judge”) given on 1 December 2022 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 27 July 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not lodged any written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the notice of motion and affirmation, 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.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion. In considering whether to extend the time, we will have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended.

5.The applicant’s notice of motion is late by six weeks, which is a significant delay. The applicant explained in his notice of motion and affirmation that he did not receive the court’s decision as he has since 23 March 2023 been detained by at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre. We note that the applicant has previously not informed the court of his detention nor has he provided documentary support for his detention. Nevertheless, the most important consideration is the merits of his intended application for leave to appeal and his intended appeal.

6.On the merits of the intended application, section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

7.Other than stating that he would like to appeal, the applicant has not provided any grounds to support for his intended appeal or to support the application for leave to appeal.

8.In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it would be futile to extend the time for the application. Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.