|
CACV 432/2021
[2022] HKCA 1320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2021
(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2039 OF 2018)
_____________________
| RE |
MOHAMMAD HALIM JAWED |
Applicant
|
_____________________
Before: Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 9 September 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 22 June 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 876) dismissing the applicant’s application for relief from the sanction imposed by the unless order dated 15 October 2021.
2. On 19 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation 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, he has not put in any written submission to support the application.
3. Having considered the Notice of Motion and the affirmation, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.
4. The background to this case and the application for relief from sanctions have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.
5. Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.
6. The applicant’s Notice of Motion was filed within the time stipulated under section 24(2). The applicant was mistaken when he stated in the affirmation that his application was made out of time and asked for an extension of time.
7. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.
8. The Notice of Motion states that: (1) this Court was wrong as matter of law in not applying the principle of procedural fairness when the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) was required to give reasons for his decision: (2) this Court was wrong as a matter of law in not applying the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director; (3) there are some errors of law in the decision as the decision maker relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim; (4) actual life situation is different from what was stated in the COI. The Court and the decision makers ignored overwhelming evidence of violence committed towards the minorities, searching for unrealistic sliver lining; and (iv) the judge did not apply the law properly and there was procedural unfairness.
9. The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute viable grounds for the application. Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, had been identified. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are therefore not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.
|