HOSSAIN IKRAM S.M. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 302/2018

[2019] HKCA 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 302 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 567 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court handed down judgment on 13 December 2018 dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of DHCJ Woodcock given on 3 July 2018 dismissing his application for leave to start judicial review proceedings.

2.  The applicant issued a Notice of Motion on 20 December 2018 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  This was supported by an affirmation of the same day.  The grounds stated are that there is no truth in the statement that there is no substance in his application; he had not made a complaint about the poor performance of the duty lawyer for fear of being picked out for “misappropriating” by the adjudicator; and he did not have enough time to address the bundle.

3.  The applicant lodged submissions in support of his application on 24 January 2019.  They do not appear to be related to the grounds in the Notice of Motion. 

4.  The requirement for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484:

“An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

5.  We have considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions. 

6.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

7.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 20 December 2018 is dismissed.