RE SHAH ZAFAR ALI

CAMP 89/2018

[2019] HKCA 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 89 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 288/2017)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 23 November 2018, the Court (Lam VP and Zervos JA) handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 867) refusing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 8 November 2017. In her decision, the Judge refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

2.  In his notice of motion dated 4 December 2018 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant advanced the following grounds of appeal:

“ * The Learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on the 23^rd November 2018 refusing for applying for Judicial Review out of time and the order dated 30^th April 2018.

* The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director whereby the Director was required to give reasons Justifying the decision.” (sic)

3.  Notwithstanding he was directed to do so, the applicant did not lodge any written submission in support of his notice of motion. 

4.  Plainly, the grounds advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The grounds are framed in very broad and vague terms without any particulars given and failed to engage with our reasons for refusing to extend time to enable the applicant to apply for leave under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4). 

5.  Having considered the materials before us, we cannot discern any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor can we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Accordingly, the statutory thresholds for granting leave appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

6.  Further, without leave under Section 14AA, there cannot be any appeal against the decision of the court below.  By virtue of Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance, the refusal of leave is final. There cannot be any appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.