RE MONJUR HOSSAIN

CAMP 77/2018

[2018] HKCA 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 77OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 247/2017)

________________________

________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.  On 7 August 2018 the Court (Cheung CJHC and Lam VP) handed down judgment refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 4 May 2018. The principal reason for refusing extension was our conclusion that the intended appeal had no merit.

2.  On 20 August 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, he said:

“ Dear Sir, I beg to sttat that I am Monjur Hossain and I am a unrepresented litigant, long time I am living in Hong Kong. I have a problem thats why I cannot going back my country. I respect Hong Kong Law and Hong Kong High Court. I apologise and request to re-consider and thinking my life and restart beginning in Hong Kong all my history. I apologise and I hope consider my respond above. Thank you.” (sic)

3.  On 3 September 2018, the applicant lodged submissions in support of his application.  In those submissions, he reiterated his personal predicament and the danger he would face if he were returned to Bangladesh.

4.  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.”

5.  Having read the Notice of Motion and the submissions of the applicant, 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.  The applicant has not raised any 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. 

6.  The Notice of Motion of 20 August 2018 is dismissed.