MD SARWAR ALAM PARVEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 281/2024, [2025] HKCA 107

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 1037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 281 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1585 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 13 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1037) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 May 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 1188), whereby his application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

2.  On 14 November 2024, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.  In his Notice of Motion, the Applicant only stated that he wanted to appeal against the Judgment, without stating any grounds of appeal.

6.  On 28 November 2024, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the Applicant to lodge written submissions by the deadline stated in the letter to the Applicant. The Applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

7.  This court have given reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal in the Judgment.

8.  In the present application, the Applicant has failed to pinpoint any error in the Judgment or raised any grounds for disturbing it. Importantly, the Applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, or any other reason why his case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  Therefore, we refuse to give leave to the Applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is dismissed accordingly.