|
CACV 312/2021
[2021] HKCA 1880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 312 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1950 OF 2018)
__________________________
| RE: |
BAIG REHMAN |
Applicant |
__________________________
Before: Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 2 November 2021
Date of Judgment: 15 December 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (Yuen and Chow JJA) handed down judgment on 20 September 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1357) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 17 July 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).
2. On 15 June 2021, the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision. As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 20 September 2021, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. On 19 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. However, it was out of time, as s.24(2) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) Cap. 484 stipulates that the deadline for filing an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal is 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. The deadline for filing the Notice of Motion expired on 18 October 2021.
4. However, under s.24(5) and s.24(6) of the HKCFAO, the Court of Appeal has a discretion to extend the appeal period even though the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period. In the exercise of our discretion whether or not to extend the appeal period, we should consider the length of the delay, the applicant’s reasons for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and whether any prejudice would be suffered by the other party.
5. In the present case, the applicant was late by only 1 day. The delay is minimal. The merits (if any) are discussed below.
6. In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 19 October 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 2 November 2021. In his written submissions, in gist, he requested for a reconsideration of his case and complained of the lack of legal and language assistance throughout the process of assessment.
7. The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. As it is appropriate to do so, we proceed to determine this application on paper.
8. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.
9. The applicant failed to identify any error of law or raise any discernible ground to reverse our judgment in his Notice of Motion and written submissions. Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
10. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 19 October 2021 is dismissed.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|