RE MIRZA MUHAMMAD MOHSIN

CACV 463/2018

[2019] HKCA 483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1109 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 4 March 2019, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing the applicant’s application for relief from the sanction imposed by an unless order made on 16 November 2018. Consequent upon the applicant’s failure to comply with the said unless order, his appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 7 September 2018 was dismissed.     

2.  On 13 March 2018, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with a supporting affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submission to support his application. 

3.  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 his notice of motion.

4.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

5.  The applicant did not set out any proposed ground of appeal in the Notice of Motion.  He merely stated that he was not satisfied with the court’s decision, and would seek permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because he wanted to remain in Hong Kong for a longer time. 

6.  What was stated by the applicant does not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  His wish to remain in Hong Kong is not a viable ground of ground.       

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.