RE ISLAM ASHRAFUL

CACV 181/2020

[2021] HKCA 999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 181 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2998/2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  On 5 May 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 3 May 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s summons of 4 December 2020 in which he applied for relief from the sanction imposed by this Court’s unless order of 22 October 2020.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the 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 raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]

4.  Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 25 May 2021, the Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 9 June 2021. In those submissions, he repeated his prior submissions on appeal as well as citing additional general statements of law quoted from case law and legislation. He did not explain how such general statements specifically relate to or apply in this case to give rise to a valid ground of appeal against our judgment. 

5.  The Applicant’s submissions failed to engage with our reasons given in the judgment of 3 May 2021 for dismissing his application for relief from the sanction imposed by the unless order.  As such, they do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment. 

6.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.