|
CACV 416/2023, [2025] HKCA 135
On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 416 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1567 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
PRADO DEXTER PASCUAL |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
14 February 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):
1. On 16 July 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 24 June 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 555). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 7 December 2023, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 3164).
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
3. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated:
“I seek to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse to grant me leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office.” (sic)
5. Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.
6. In our view, this application is a non-starter. The applicant has failed to put forward any valid ground of appeal or specify any error in the Judgment. Plainly, his allegations do not constitute proper grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7. In any event, even taking his case as its highest, the applicant’s allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.
8. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 16 July 2024 is dismissed.
| (Thomas Au) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|