RE CHARANMEET SINGH

CACV 462/2021, [2024] HKCA 645

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 462 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2991 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 11 January 2023, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application by way of Summons filed on 6 June 2022 seeking relief from sanction (namely the dismissal of his appeal on 18 February 2022) imposed for his non-compliance with an unless order dated 19 January 2022.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 10 February 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant did not set out any grounds, but merely stated, inter alia, that there was “some error in law in [this Court’s] decision” and that this court ignored “the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities”.  

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 23 February 2023, the applicant referred, inter alia, to the well-established principles in ST v Director of Immigration (sic)[2] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277, Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and R v Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 AC 514.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  Further, there was no attempt by the applicant to elaborate on whether and, if so, how the trite principles referred to in his written submissions had not been applied in the consideration of his appeal by this court or in processing of his non-refoulement claim.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 February 2023 is dismissed.