|
CACV 155/2020
[2021] HKCA 856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 155 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1598 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
GUNASEKARAN SARAVANAN |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Cheung and Au JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 15 January 2021
Date of Judgment: 15 June 2021
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 January 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA) judgment of 31 December 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 1073. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 29 May 2020, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. 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 and the relevant papers, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
3. 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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:
“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]
5. In his skeleton submissions of 15 January 2021 filed pursuant to the Court’s directions, the applicant quoted some authorities on high standard of fairness and on Wednesbury unreasonableness. He also cited section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) about the late filing of notice of appeal before the Torture Claims Appeal Board. However, none of these submissions were presented before this Court. These new arguments would therefore not be entertained: Re Shariful Islam [2020] HKCA 342, per Lam VP at [21]. In any event, these are general propositions that the applicant has not shown how they are relevant to his case.
6. The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and skeleton submissions fail to pinpoint any specific errors in the Judgment. These are therefore not viable grounds of appeal. The intended appeal has no merits at all.
7. In any event, we also do not consider that there is any 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.
| (Johnson Lam) |
(Peter Cheung) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|