RE CHOHAN CHAMKAUR SINGH

CAMP 47/2018

[2020] HKCA 631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 47 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 364 of 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 11 June 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 9 March 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 3 July 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given on 7 July 2020, the applicant has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing, and have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.  The applicant’s notice of motion is late by almost two years, which is very serious delay.  There is no explanation for it.

7.  As for the merits of the application, section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

8.  The notice of motion did not set out any proposed grounds of appeal.  It merely stated that the decision was not right, it was not safe for him to go back to his country and he would like to appeal so that he could stay safe.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  Accordingly, the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal has no prospect of success, and it would be futile to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal.

9.  Having regard to the very serious and unexplained delay as well as the lack of merits in the intended appeal, we would not extend the time for applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The notice of motion is therefore dismissed.