RE AHMED SYED RAFIQ

CACV 272/2017

[2018] HKCA 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 272 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 204 OF 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  This Court (Lam VP and Chu JA) handed down the judgment on 26 March 2018 refusing to grant relief from the dismissal of the appeal due to the failure of the applicant to comply with an unless order made on 19 December 2017.

2.  On 3 April 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions (written in English) in support of his application on 26 April 2018.

4.  The applicant said he did not have the necessary resource and assistance to prepare for the appeal.  We do not accept this assertion.  He did not appear to have difficulty to lodge his Notice of Appeal, Notice of Motion and various documents (all prepared in English).  He also had no difficulty in complying with the directions to lodge written submissions in support of his Notice of Motion.  

5.  Having read his written submissions lodged on 26 April 2018, we are of the view that the Notice of Motion can be processed on the papers without any oral hearing.

6.  In the judgment of 26 March 2018, the Court assessed the merits of the appeal at [21] to [28] by reference to the facts of this case.  This was a case and fact sensitive assessment.  For the reasons given, the appeal was wholly devoid of merit.  There is nothing in the written submissions of 26 April 2018 which can take the applicant’s case further.

7.  The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

8.  Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.  There is no question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.

9.  The Notice of Motion of 3 April 2018 is therefore dismissed.