RE MOHAMMED ASGAR

CACV 2/2021

[2021] HKCA 1455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1439 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 27 August 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 23 December 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 6 September 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The notice of motion stated that the applicant could not accept this Court’s decision because the decision maker relied only on a simple hearsay, was irrational, and disregarded his security.  It also said that the decision was unfair and the judges might not have analysed the applicant’s appeal.  It further complained that the decision was unreasonable and that high standards of fairness are required in the determination.     

7.  We are of the view that the matters put forward in the notice of motion do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Firstly, the notice of motion has not set out or identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Secondly, the applicant only put forward general complaints about the decision but had given no particulars or details to support the assertions.    

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

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.