Re Titis Gutamasari

CACV 385/2022, [2026] HKCA 905

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 385 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 128/2019)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 31 March 2023, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 16 September 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review and dismissing her leave application. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 14 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“… there is some error in my law maker decision. I am disagree with decision made by the Director of Immigration and Torture Claim Appeal Board. The authorities totally relied on some web news which officially not recognised. I do not think my case determined fairly.”

4.In her written submissions lodged on 28 April 2023, the applicant, apart from repeating the matters stated in her Notice of Motion, complained that she was prejudiced in the proceedings below by reason of a lack of legal representation and language assistance.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 14 April 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person