RE ABDUL MANNAN AND OTHERS

CACV 332/2019

[2020] HKCA 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 788 OF 2018)

________________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 4 December 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 July 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

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

1.3  The applicants now apply, by a notice of motion dated 10 December 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.4  In the applicants’ notice of motion, they complained that their written submissions were delivered by post and no fault should be attributed to the delay of postal service.  The applicants then complained that our judgment did not deal with paragraphs (4) to (10) of their written submission.  They complained that they did not understand the Form CALL‑1 handed down and therefore unable to put forward their full grounds of complaint.  They further complained about the lack of language assistance.

1.5  The applicants provided written submissions.  In summary, they said that our judgment has no ‘legal sense’ and we had not considered their case thoroughly.  They were not aware of the various decisions of the Board and the Director.  They complained that they were not given language assistance and they could not find such assistance themselves.

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 applicants in their notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have 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 they have raised in their notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2  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 dated 10 December 2019 is dismissed.