RE GILL SUMIT

CACV 212/2024, [2025] HKCA 199

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1267 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 16 October 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 4 October 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 901).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 21 May 2024, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 1353)(“the Leave Decision”).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant again repeated his complaints that the lack of assistance provided to him constituted a failure to adhere to the high standard of fairness.  He further asserted that the court failed to address the issues regarding his grounds and his skeleton submissions.  He disagreed with this court’s observations at [19] of the Judgment and repeated that his lack of knowledge in legal jargon was a fact and thus, the Judgment erred in that it was made “with the lack of evidential consideration of the issues raised”.  He also complained that this court did not discuss the errors made by the Board and the Director.

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 30 October 2024. In those submissions, he reiterated his complaints regarding his lack of language and legal assistance and that the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision were not translated or read back to him, which deprived him of the reasonable opportunity to point out errors in those decisions in full.  He further complained that he was deprived of his right to an oral hearing and that the observations of the Judge were not justified.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Moreover, his allegations are essentially a repeat of those submissions he previously made before this court in his appeal, which we had fully considered and rejected: see [11] - [21] of the Judgment.  He has failed to identify any specific error in the Judgment.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which have already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014)  at [2] and [3].  All the court documents filed by the applicant in the present application as well as in the appeal and the court below are in English.  The applicant is clearly conversant with the English language or has access to language assistance of his own.  There is plainly no substance in his arguments.  He also attended oral hearings before the Board, the court below and this court and suitable language interpreters were present during the hearings to provide language assistance to him.  For the above reasons, his assertions are devoid of substance and in any event do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

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

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 16 October 2024 is dismissed.