BUDDADASAGE SUDESH JETHENDRA KUMARA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 520/2021

[2025] HKCA 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 758 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1.  On 6 February 2023, this Court (Cheung JA and S T Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 10 November 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 6 February 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated nothing in his notice of motion but his name.

4.  The applicant stated in his written submissions in summary that there was still problem in his country. He stated that his enemies were still trying to find him. He stated that his friend disappeared upon return to Sri Lanka. He stated that the local government was unstable. He stated that Sri Lanka was not habitable.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 February 2023 is dismissed.