RE HUSSAIN MUNAWAR

CACV 110/2019

[2019] HKCA 933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1100 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 2 July 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 22 February 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 10 July 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4   The applicant stated in the notice of motion that :

‘ I would like to inform court there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on col information and my previous farts which were favor on rejected my claims Actual life occur different situation then mentioned col information. officer and Courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claims.’

1.5   The applicant’s written submission is a pro forma document that is commonly used in application to a Judge of the Court of First Instance for leave to apply for judicial review.  It first stated the applicant’s background, dividing his background story into four incidents.  Then, it sets out grounds for judicial review.  They are all complaints against the Director and the Board.

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 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 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 10 July 2019 is dismissed.