RE MIAH BACHCHU

CAMP 298/2019

[2020] HKCA 1076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 298 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 88 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 2 September 2020, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 734, refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Chung J given on 2 February 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 200) (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.  We dismissed the applicant’s summons on the basis that his explanation for an 18-month delay was without proof and lacked specifics and, in any event, the intended grounds of appeal contained no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s Decision.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

4.  On 9 September 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also failed to lodge his written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 September 2020.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  In the applicant’s Notice of Motion, he merely stated that he wished to challenge the Judgment without providing any grounds of appeal.

7.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and the written submissions, pursuant to the Practice Direction 2.1, we did not find any exceptional circumstance in this application to deviate from the usual practice and thus proceeded to consider this application on papers without any oral hearing.

8.  Plainly, the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is hopeless.  The applicant did not identify any errors (let alone any particularised errors) in the Judgment to support the intended appeal.  These are also not viable grounds of appeal, and the intended appeal has no prospect of success.

9.  In any event, the applicant did not raise any questions that involve any question of great general or public importance such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance are therefore not met.

10.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.