RE GURPREET SINGH

CACV 398/2022, [2025] HKCA 858

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 398 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2262/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 22 February 2023, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 20 September 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 18 December 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated he disagreed with the decision “of previous court” and that the problem in his home country persisted and if he should return he would face certain dangers.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 31 December 2024, the applicant repeated the dangers he may face should he be refouled, as well as his criticisms of the judge, which have already been raised and canvassed in the appeal proper before this Court.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The applicant is grossly out of time in filing his Notice of Motion, by well over 1.5 years.  No explanation whatsoever has been provided for the serious delay.  The Notice falls to be dismissed on this basis alone.  However, we have nonetheless proceeded to consider the present application, which is in any event unmeritorious.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 18 December 2024 is dismissed.