Re Abelido Rowena Rumbaoa

CACV 11/2024, [2024] HKCA 787

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 321 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 26 April 2024, 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 Bruno Chan given on 5 January 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the application as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 9 May 2024, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following :

‘ I want the challenge the decision.’

5.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals also dated 9 May 2024, the applicant was to lodge and serve on or before 23 May 2024 written submissions. The applicant has not lodged or served written submission by the stipulated deadline.

II.  Our view

6.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.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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.

8.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

9.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 9 May 2024 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person