RE HOSSAIN RIPON

CAMP 93/2019

[2020] HKCA 98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 93 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 111 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 23 October 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and Chu JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of High Court Judge Toh given on 18 September 2017 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 24 October 2019, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3  Doing the best we can, the applicant stated that our decision was without substance.  He stated that he did not complain about his lawyer because he was afraid that he would be picked out.  He also said he did not have time to address the hearing bundle.

1.4  The applicant filed his supporting affirmation on 24 October 2019, which stated that the judges were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence and in failing to find out the current situation in Bangladesh.

1.5  In non-compliance with the orders of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 25 October 2019 and 8 November 2019, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions by 26 November 2019.  This application is determined on paper based on the applicant’s notice of motion and supporting affirmation filed on 24 October 2019.

2.)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3.)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and supporting affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or supporting affirmation.

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

4.)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion filed on 24 October 2019 is dismissed.