|
CACV 108/2021
[2022] HKCA 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 489 OF 2019)
____________________
| RE: |
ERSHAD MOHAMMED |
Applicant |
____________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court
Date of Judgment : 5 January 2022
____________________
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
1. On 11 August 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang of 9 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
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.
3. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 30 August 2021 (‘Notice of Motion’), for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. No discernible grounds were mentioned in his notice of motion.
5. In his written submissions, the applicant referred to general legal principles and authorities on non‑refoulement claim, but did not point to any error in our judgment or to any matter of great general or public importance.
II. Legal principles
6. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484), 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.
III. Our view
7. The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
8. 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.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
IV. Disposition
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 30 August 2021 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Bebe Pui Ying Chu) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court |
| |
of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|