RE DINESH KUMAR

CACV 132/2020

[2021] HKCA 797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 132 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 292 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 4 January 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 23 December 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 1057.  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 13 May 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the 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 papers 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) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

“I would like to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my case. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because there were totally relay on news and post on web which is not real matter in actual. Because its toward to my life in my home land in India. I do not go back to India because my in danger in my home country in India. So I would like to relevant pleas pay attention on my case.” [sic]

5.  In his skeleton submissions of 18 January 2020 filed pursuant to the Court’s directions, the applicant submits that (a) the decision makers did not determine his case fairly; (b) there should have been a proper and fair mechanism for unrepresented litigant; (c) he did not have legal and language assistance; (d) he was not notified of his rights and was not given an opportunity to be heard; (e) the authorities were discriminatory against the non-refoulement claimants.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is totally without merits.  The fact that the applicant was not given oral hearing before this Court or the court below was well justified for the reasons stated at [4] and [13] of the Judgment for his failure to lodge a written submission before us and to request an oral hearing before the court below.  His allegations of lack of language and legal assistance were not advanced before us and will not be entertained: Sorip Khan v Torture Claims Appeal Board & Anor [2019] HKCA 510 at [12]; Re Md Iqbal [2019] HKCA 912 at [13(3)]; Re Sudimah [2019] HKCA 1030 at [12(3)]; and Re Marshall Bill O [2019] HKCA 1031 at [13(3)]. The rest of the matters in the Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific errors in the Judgment.

7.  In the circumstances and in any event, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.