RE QAYYUM MUHAMMAD

CACV 414/2023, [2025] HKCA 845

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 3024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1181 of 2019)

__________________________________

__________________________________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 9 January 2025, this Court (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for relief from sanction from an unless order made by this Court on 6 February 2024.

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.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 10 January 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to inform to the Court of Final Appeal. There are some law error in my decision maker authorities. The Respondent’s had unlawfully fettered his discretion by refused my appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements. As well as there are not proper investigation in my claim.’

4.  The applicant’s written submissions (which annexes four pages of fresh evidence) stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant does not think his case was determined fairly;

2)  The applicant did not know how his case was determined;

3)  The applicant was never provided with legal and language assistance;

4)  The respondents unlawfully fettered their discretion by refusing the applicant’s appeal;

5)  The adjudicator was procedurally unfair;

6)  The respondent’s decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or a result of procedural error;

7)  The respondent failed to meet greater care and duty owed to the applicant; and

8)  The authorities’ quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable.

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 matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant. None of the complaints relate to his summons for relief from sanction application. Further, it is factually incorrect to state that the applicant never had any legal or language assistance, see the Board’s decision (16 April 2019) at [4], [8]. Findings of fact are within the province of the Board. The four pages of fresh evidence that are enclosed in the applicant’s written submissions, are outside the purview of this Court. In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters 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 10 January 2025 is dismissed.