Ponomarova Olena v. Master Kent Yee, Deputy Registrar of the High Court
Read the full judgment text of CACV 313A/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 February 2024 before Yuen JA, Chow JA, S T Poon J.
Civil appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) s 22(1)(b) – great general or public importance – "or otherwise" limb – legal aid appeal – judicial review – Labour Tribunal Ordinance – constructive termination of employment – alleged misdirection by lower court – repetition of arguments previously rejected – no viable ground – no reasonable prospect of success – costs – summary assessment – stay of execution – Practice Direction 2.1 – paper determination – whether leave to appeal to CFA should be granted – held: no question of great general or public importance identified, intended grounds were bare allegations or repetitions of arguments already considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal – application dismissed with costs of HK$11,197 allowed in full upon summary assessment – stay of execution refused.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed with costs to the Putative Interested Party; application for stay of execution refused.
Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 313/2022, [2024] HKCA 83 On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 313 OF 2022 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 249 OF 2022) ________________________
_____________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 7 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing:
2.By Notice of Motion dated 4 December 2023, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In a document attached the Notice of Motion dated 4 December 2023, the Applicant set out the following intended grounds of appeal:
3.In accordance with the usual practice under paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper, notwithstanding the Applicant’s request for an oral hearing of the application. 4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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. 5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. 6.Other than background information, the matters raised in the Applicant’s written submissions dated 22 December 2023 and reply submissions dated 12 January 2024 are essentially repetitions of the arguments previously advanced by her but rejected by the Court of Appeal. The Applicant’s allegation that the Court of Appeal has “perpetuated” the misdirection on facts and evidence by Coleman J is a bare allegation without particulars. The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. The intended appeal based on the matters raised in the Notice of Motion has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. 7.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal based on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 8.For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs to the Putative Interested Party. The costs claimed by the Putative Interested Party in the costs statement dated 5 January 2024, in the amount of HK$11,197, are reasonable, and are allowed in full upon summary assessment. 9.Lastly, in view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, there would be no reason to grant any stay of execution of the order of the Court of Appeal dated 7 November 2023 or any subsequent costs order(s) made by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the Applicant’s application for stay of execution is refused.
The Applicant, acting in person Ms Bonnie Chung, Senior Government Counsel, of Department of Justice, for the Putative Interested Party | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||