RE NAWAZ RAB

CACV 491/2022, [2023] HKCA 918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2505 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 11 April 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 358)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 13 December 2022 refusing to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 14 April 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  He has also put in any written submission to support his application.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

5.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

6.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.

7.  The Notice of Motion stated that there is some error of law in the decision of his case; the decision maker only relied on COI and facts that favour the dismissal of his claim; actual situation was different that that mentioned in the COI; the court and the officer chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities; and the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach that was unfair and unreasonable.

8.  The written submission is the same as the written submission lodged in support of this appeal: see [13] of our judgment.

9.  The matters stated in the Notice of Motion relate solely to the applicant’s case.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. For the reasons we gave in [15(4)] and [15(5)] of our judgment, the written submission has no merits.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are therefore not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.