RE KHATRI BHOJ RAJ

CACV 311/2020

[2021] HKCA 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 311 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2070/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 28 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 19 April 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 17 July 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant stated that the Court failed to apply to the principle of irrationality to the Judge’s refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, that there has been procedural unfairness and that the Judge did not apply the law properly.  There is however no particular to support such general assertions.

4.  In the Applicant’s written submissions of 12 May 2021, he reiterated and rehashed his prior arguments before the Judge regarding lack of language and legal assistance, which the Judge had already addressed and rejected in his reasons for his decision. 

5.  The Applicant also stated in his submissions that he has received news (without stating the source and date of such information) that a large group of Maoist party members are still engaging in violence and still wield huge power such that the police are afraid of them. Thus his parents do not want him to return to Nepal.

6.  The Applicant’s submissions did not engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 19 April 2021 for dismissing his appeal. Nor do they raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in this Court’s judgment.

7.  There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.