RE REYES ENRICO KARASIG

CAMP 307/2019

[2021] HKCA 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 307 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 967 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 8 September 2020, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 749, refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 July 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 1343) (“the Deputy Judge’s Decision”).

2.  We dismissed the applicant’s summons on the basis that his explanation for a 12-day delay was unsatisfactory and, in any event, the intended grounds of appeal had no merits.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

4.  On 15 September 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal with the following grounds: “1- Procedural unfairness. 2- not following the wednesbury Rule. 3- Improper decision. 4- Not equalling the consequence.” [sic]

5.  In his supporting affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant stated that there was a good ground of appeal not considered by this Court and the said ground constituted a justification for this Court to extend time.  Yet, he did not elaborate on the alleged ground. Further, his written submission of 29 September 2020 is identical to that of 30 December 2019 placed before us, which was rejected for the reasons set out at [27] of the Judgment.

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”), 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.

7.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and the written submissions, pursuant to the Practice Direction 2.1, we did not find any exceptional circumstance in this application to deviate from the usual practice and thus proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

8.  In our view, this application is devoid of merit.

9.  Nowhere in the applicant’s Notice of Motion and the written submission has he identified any errors in the Judgment.  The grounds in his Notice of Motion are mere bare and general assertions without any specifics.  We had explained at [24] - [28] of the Judgment as to why we dismissed the applicant’s summons for extension of time to appeal the Deputy Judge’s Decision.  The applicant failed to identify any errors in our reasons. These are therefore not viable grounds to challenge the Judgment.  On this basis alone, we will dismiss this application.

10.  In any event, none of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involves any question of great general or public importance such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO are therefore not met.

11.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.