HUSSAIN RAFAQAT v. EVAN RUTH, ESQ

CACV 341/2018

[2019] HKCA 439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 341 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 878 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court handed down judgment on 13 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 157) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 13 July 2018 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 22 February 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. This was supported by an affirmation of the same day.  Pursuant to the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 11 March 2019, the time for the applicant to lodge his written submissions was extended from 8 March 2019 to 27 March 2019.  The applicant, however, failed to comply with the unless order.

3.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that:

“- The claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds not made a complain of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.”

4.  In an affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant complained that the court was wrong to conclude there was no state acquiescence or involvement and had failed to find out details of the current situation in Pakistan.

5.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 11 March 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

6.  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 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.

7.  The applicant’s grounds stated in his Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

8.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

11.  By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 22 February 2019 is dismissed.