RE SHRESTHA PRADIP

CACV 187/2021

[2021] HKCA 1647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 187 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1037 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 17 September 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 April 2021 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 27 September 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission on 8 October 2021 to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 Board and the Court have disregarded the applicant’s danger and do not understand the actual situation in Nepal.

7.  The written submission is identical to the one put in for the appeal (see [11] of our judgment).    

8.  We are of the view that the matters stated in the notice of motion and the written submission do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Firstly, they had been considered by us and we have for the reasons given at [17] to [20] of our judgment rejected them as untenable.  Secondly and importantly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for determination by the Court of Final Appeal, as required by section 22(1)(b).    

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

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

[1] [2021] HKCA 1336.