RE BULO

CAMP 158/2019

[2020] HKCA 868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 158 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1584 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 19 June 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s (Barma and Au JJA) judgment of 12 June 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 476.

2.  In the Judgment, we refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 14 March 2019 refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review [2019] HKCFI 619.

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.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the 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.

5.  The following grounds for leave to appeal were set out in the Notice of Motion:

“ON THE CAMP COURT THE JUDGES ORDERED TO DISMISS MY APPEAL. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS JUDGMENT. I DID NOT GET FAIR JUDGEMENT. THE JUDGES FAILED TO SHOW ANY CAUSE TO DISMISS MY LEAVE APPLICATION. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” [sic]

6.  In his written submissions of 2 July 2020, he merely repeated his personal background and his claim.  Other than that, he did not identify any errors in the Judgment.

7.  This Court had at paragraphs 16 to 29 of the Judgment provided detailed reasons as to why the applicant’s intended appeal had no merits.  It is misconceived for the applicant to argue that the court did not show cause to dismiss his leave application.  This is not a viable ground.

8.  Nothing in the applicant’s Notice of Motion or written submissions disclosed any grounds of appeal that would disturb the Judgment.  In any event, no question of great general or public importance has been raised and there is no other reason that the matter ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.  Plainly, the statutory requirements under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO are not met.

9.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.  We dismiss the Notice of Motion accordingly.