Re Dao Thi Ngoan

CACV 405/2023, [2024] HKCA 784

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1163 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment 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 KW Lung given on 1 December 2023 in 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 7 May 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following :

‘ I want to challenge the decision’

4.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 7 May 2024, the applicant was to lodge on or before 21 May 2024 written submissions. The applicant has not lodged or served written submission by the stipulated deadline.

II.  Our view

5.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.

6.The matter stated by the applicant in her notice of motion does not constitute ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great 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 matter raised by the applicant.

7.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

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 7 May 2024 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person