RE HOSHEN MOHAMMAD MONIR

CACV 587/2018

[2019] HKCA 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 407 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 25 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 657), the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) in HCAL 407/2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 19 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“On 25 June 2019, the Honourable Judge dismissed my claim from the Court of Appeal. I am so upset. I am not satisfied for this decision. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. The Honourable Judge failed to show me any good cause. I write many law error but that cause they not consider.”

3.  On 20 August 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant to lodge with Court his written submissions in support of the notice of motion on or before 2 September 2019. The applicant failed to lodge his written submissions as directed.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

4.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.  Here, the applicant’s mere disagreement with the decision of the Court of Appeal without pinpointing any errors of law or procedures in our judgment did not constitute valid ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 25 June 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

6.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.