RE BEYAI PA SISAWO

CACV 132/2023, [2023] HKCA 1229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1198 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 September 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 1011) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 20 April 2023 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 19 September 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submissions to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim had been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.  The Notice of Motion did not set out any ground for the application.  The applicant merely stated that he did not get justice and wants to go the Court of Final Appeal.  

7.  The applicant has failed to provide any ground for his application or the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, let alone identifying any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  We also do not see any basis for applying the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.