RE ENOGIERU STANLEY

CACV 276/2020

[2021] HKCA 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1815 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1.  On 29 January 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 10 July 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

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

1.3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 9 February 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there were errors of law in the decisions against him.  He stated that country of origin information in his disfavour was used against him.  He stated that there was overwhelming evidence of violence against him.  The decisions were biased, adopted a formula approach and the assessment of his case was unreasonable.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

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

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 9 February 2021 is dismissed.