RE MIAH ABDUR ROB

CACV 585/2018

[2019] HKCA 989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 399 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 10 May 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 11 December 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2   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 our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3   The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and affirmation dated 20 May 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4   The content of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  Trying our best, it seems that the applicant is complaining that it is not true that his claims are without substance.  He stated he did not complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer because he was afraid to be picked out.  He reiterated that he did not have time to address the bundles before the Board.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5   The applicant’s affirmation exhibited copies of the Court’s judgment and order.  He complained that the judges were wrong in law to hold that there was no state acquiescence and they failed to take account of the current situation in Bangladesh.

1.6   The applicant’s written submission also lacked specificity and relevance.  The written submission is a pro forma document that is commonly used in this type of application.  It first stated that applicant’s background.  Then, it sets out broad and general terms, legal principles, concepts and statutory provision for non‑refoulement or constitutional law cases.  They are simply legal propositions without more.

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, affirmation and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  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.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submission.

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 20 May 2019 is dismissed.