RE AHAMED AZAD

CACV 369/2020

[2021] HKCA 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 369 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1903/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 15 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 23 March 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 4 August 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  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.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant stated that this Court based its decision on some incorrect information and relied on simple hearsay, and that its decision was irrational and unfair.  However, he did not provide any particulars for these grounds for leave to appeal. 

4.  In the grounds annexed to the Notice of Motion, the Applicant set out general statements of law without providing any particulars to support his assertions that this Court erred in the manner he alleged.  The Applicant also stated that two days before filing the Notice of Motion, his family informed him that they had failed to solve his problem in India; he added that he would be killed by his enemy if he were to return to his home country.

5.  Despite the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 15 April 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 April 2021, the Applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application. 

6.  We proceed to consider his application by reference to the materials he had already placed before us.

7.  In our view, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing the judgment of 23 March 2021.  There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.