RE UMAR KHATAB

CACV 444/2018

[2019] HKCA 334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1114 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 21 January 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell‑Moffat J given on 7 September 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2   The facts and issues of the 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 filed on 28 January 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there was error in law in our judgment, including that the decision maker relied on Country of Origin information in his disfavour.

1.4   The applicant lodged his written submissions on 11 February 2019.  He cited authorities without much elaboration on how they applied to his case.  He repeated factual matters of his case.

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 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 28 January 2019 is dismissed.