RE MAHBOOB ALI SHAN

CACV 482/2020

[2021] HKCA 1434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 734 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 23 April 2021, this Court (Cheung JA, G Lam (as he then was) and S T Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 September 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 6 May 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that :

‘ I would like to inform court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my decision. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because they were totally relied on col information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation them mentioned col information. Because its toward to my life in my home land in Pakistan. I do not wish to go back to Pakistan because my life in danger in my country in Pakistan.’

4.  The applicant also lodged his written submissions.  He stated there was real procedural unfairness.  He stated he was not given opportunity to be heard.  There was unlawful fettering of discretion. There was irrationality in the public law sense.  Quick disposal of his case was discriminatory.  He stated that he did not know English and had a language handicap.  None of these are provided with particulars.

II.      Legal principles

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) 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.

III.     Our view

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

IV.     Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 May 2021 is dismissed.