RE IMASA ROLANDO HIPOL

CAMP 496/2022, [2026] HKCA 399

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 496 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 124 OF 2022)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 7 November 2023, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 27 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  In short, the applicant’s Summons for an extension of time to appeal was struck out by reason of his non-compliance with an unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 November 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant did not set out any grounds or bases for his application whatsoever.

4.  In breach of the directors made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 applicant has wholly failed to put forward any grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also wholly 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.

7.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises 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 27 November 2023 is dismissed.