RE ALI MAJID

CACV 513/2018

[2019] HKCA 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1064 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 28 February 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 5 October 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2   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.

1.3   The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 6 March 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

1.4   The applicant stated in his notice of motion that our judgment was procedurally unfair.  He also stated that our judgment ‘did not apply the law probley [sic] [properly]’.

1.5   The applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 March 2019.  In summary, he quoted legal authorities and statutory provision, without formulating how they relate to his case or what was the exact question that needs to be determined that involved great general or public importance.  He complained that the Board was unfair in assessing his credibility.

2)  Legal principles

2.   Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1   The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  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. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or written submissions.

3.2   We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.   For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 March 2019 is dismissed.