RE MOHAMMAD ATTA

CACV 188/2018

[2018] HKCA 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 830 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 8 August 2018, this Court (Cheung CJHC and Chu JA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 18 May 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 16 October 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal out of time against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  The applicant has not lodged any written submission despite the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given on 18 October 2018.

4.  The 28-day period for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal expired on 5 September 2018.  The applicant is late by six weeks, which is not insubstantial.  He stated in the Notice of Motion that this was because he was medically unfit without giving any details.  We do not accept the bare statement amounts to a satisfactory explanation of the delay.

5.  We next consider the merits of the application for leave to appeal.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides 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 stated that: (1) Under the common law, a decision maker has a duty to act fairly; (2) The Judge failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalising the decision; and (3) The Judge concluded that the grounds for judicial review were broad and vague without advising and/or inviting the applicant to give further explanation.

7.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not involve any question of great general or public importance. Further, none of the points is arguable.  First, the Judge had listed the application for leave to apply judicial review for an oral hearing, and the applicant had the opportunity to make submission to the Judge.  Second, the complaint that the Judge should have made enquiry or sought clarification from the applicant is misplaced.  The Judge did not state in his reasons that the grounds for judicial review were broad and vague.  There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  There is no merit in the intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  As such, it would be futile to extend the time for making the application.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.