RE HUSSAIN JAMAL

CAMP 133/2022

[2022] HKCA 1897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 133 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 797 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 3 November 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 20 October 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 1556). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 22 September 2020, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 2375).

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 the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I make this applicat that the court of first instance refused my case on the basis of T.C.A.B decision, but haven’t provid proof before hearing. I don’t have any inconsistence in my t,c,a,b hearing. So I can provide proof to make wrong his decision. The main grounds will be provided at letter.” (sic)

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

6.  In our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made by the applicant in his Notice of Motion are vague, bare and without any particulars or evidence in support.  Contrary to what he contended, no ground was provided in any document by the applicant.  More importantly, he failed to identify any error in the Judgment.  Clearly, his contentions are not viable grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, the applicant’s contentions are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  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.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.