RE KHALID MEHMOOD

CACV 158/2020

[2021] HKCA 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1632 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 20 November 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 29 May 2020 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 30 November 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4 The applicant has not lodged his written submissions as directed.

1.5 The applicant stated in his notice of motion that he has problem in his own country.  He stated that he needed time to stay in Hong Kong to solve his problems.  He stated that danger still exists in his home country.

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 application.

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 30 November 2020 is dismissed.