RE MD TARIK

CACV 358/2021

[2022] HKCA 1464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2986 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.  On 26 January 2022, this Court handed down the judgment ([2022] HKCA 149) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 8 July 2021 who refused to grant extension of time to the applicant for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 4 February 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal against this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not lodge any written submission despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.  

3.  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. Therefore, we shall proceed to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out at [3] in our judgment.  We shall not repeat them here.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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.

6.  The applicant’s notice of motion merely stated that he wishes to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal without providing any grounds of appeal in support.  We are of the view that the grounds put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

7.  We further do not see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 4 February 2022.