|
CACV 146/2021
[2022] HKCA 571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3008 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
NAHAR KARAMVEER SINGH
alias KARAMJIT SINGH |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 25 April 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 21 September 2021, this Court handed down a judgment ([2021] HKCA 1366) (the ‘CA Judgment’) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li of 30 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant 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 the CA Judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 4 October 2021 (the ‘Notice of Motion’), for leave to appeal against the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant reiterated that it was not safe for him to return to India, and he pleaded for the Court to allow him to stay in Hong Kong. No discernible grounds were mentioned in his Notice of Motion.
5. His written submissions dated 11 October 2021 are the same as his written submissions dated 28 May 2021 lodged for the purpose of his appeal before us. We have summarised his submissions at [11] of the CA Judgment, and we saw no merits in them ([13] of the CA Judgment).
6. Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (the ‘Registrar’), unless this Court otherwise directs, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.
II. Legal principles
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.
10. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any error in the CA Judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
11. 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
12. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 October 2021 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|