RE JAGSEER SINGH

CAMP 268/2021

[2022] HKCA 1018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 268 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1833 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 4 March 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with a supporting affirmation to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time against this Court’s (Chu and Au JJA)  judgment of 10 January 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 14). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 13 July 2020, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Decision”)  ([2020] HKCFI 1534).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  Pursuant to section 24(2)  of the HKCFAO, an appellant has 28 days from the date of the Judgment to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the present case, the deadline for the applicant to seek leave to appeal against the Judgment fell on 7 February 2022.  Accordingly, the applicant was 25 days late in taking out his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  As the applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal within time, the Court has a discretion to extend time under section 24(5)  of the HKCFAO only if good and sufficient grounds are shown by the applicant: see Re Imran Muhammad [2021] HKCA 482 at [9] and the authorities cited therein.  In deciding whether there are such good grounds, the Court is entitled to take into account (a)  the length of the delay; (b)  the reasons for the delay; (c)  the chances of the appeal succeeding if an extension of time is granted; and (d)  the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted: Begum Jahanara v Ian Candy, Esq & Another [2021] HKCA 83 at [4] and the authorities cited therein.

6.  In his Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation, the applicant stated:

“Respected Sir / Madam, I am lat for apply due to lock of knowledge and insufficient sources. Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case further, I hope I will get your favour.” (sic)

7.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

8.  At the outset, the applicant’s delay of 25 days was substantial and he failed to provide good reasons for his delay.  The mere lack of resources and ignorance of the deadline as asserted are not good reasons for the delay.

9.  More importantly, he did not advance any ground of appeal or identify any error in the Judgment in his Notice of Motion or supporting affirmation.  His intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is simply a non-starter and must fail.

10.  The applicant had also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

11.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and it will be futile to grant him extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 4 March 2022 is dismissed.