RE DON AMARASINGHALAGE DON CHANDRA JANAKA

CACV 248/2024, [2025] HKCA 664

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1256 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 25 October 2024, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 June 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 6 November 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  The applicant needs time to submit supporting document from Sri Lanka;

2)  The applicant still has problem in his home country.

4.  The applicant’s written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant’s enemies have legislative and executive power in his home country[1];

2)  The applicant encloses to his written submissions further supporting documents in support of his case[2];

5.  From pages 3 to 5 of the applicant’s written submissions, without any leave of this Court or any application to adduce further evidence, the applicant encloses two further documents that purport to look like they are 1)  a letter said to be  from the ‘United Refugee Green Council’ stating that the applicant is seeking asylum in Hong Kong due to his involvement with a Sri Lankan political party; and 2)  a letter of opinion from one Saranga Paranahewa which described events in Sri Lanka[3].

II.  Our view

6.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions (with enclosures)  are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant.  In any event, none of the matters stated by the applicant show how the Judge made any error of law in his decision in June 2024.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 November 2024 is dismissed.