RE ABBAS AZHAR

CACV 573/2019

[2020] HKCA 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 997 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 13 May 2020, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 2 December 2019 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 dated 27 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  No grounds were stated in the applicant’s notice of motion.

1.5  The applicant provided written submissions which cited legal authorities and statutory law that are commonly used in non-refoulement cases without drawing any attention to how they relate to the applicant’s case.

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 written submissions 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 and written submissions.

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 27 May 2020 is dismissed.