RE GURPREET SINGH

CAMP 118/2021

[2022] HKCA 154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 118 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 747 OF 2017)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

Introduction

1.  On 15 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA) judgment of 24 November 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1740).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 9 August 2018 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review to the applicant ([2018] HKCFI 1764).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“1. I AM THE APPLICANT IN THERE PROCEEDINGS.

2. I AM APPLYING FOR AN ORDER TO LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE JUDGMENT.

3. MY APPLICATION HAS ARGUABLE CHANCE AND REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

4. I AM FILING THIS APPLICATION AN THE ORDER/JUDGMENT UNDER CACV AN UNFAIR AND ANREASONABLE.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of the present application.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion identified any specific errors in the Judgment.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague and unsupported by specific particulars or elaboration or how they are relevant to his case.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 15 December 2021 is dismissed.