RE HOSSAN MOHAMMAD ANWAR

CACV 97/2019

[2019] HKCA 917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1124 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 19 June 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 22 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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 applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 21 June 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  The applicant’s notice of motion simply stated that he was not satisfied with the Court’s decisions and he wanted justice.  This lacks any meaningful particulars.

1.5  The applicant failed to lodge written submissions pursuant to directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 27 June 2019 by 5 July 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 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.

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 21 June 2019 is dismissed.