RE PUZON MARTIN JR SULIO

CACV 223/2024, [2025] HKCA 112

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 223 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1287 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 8 October 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 4 October 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 911). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 31 May 2024, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 792).

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.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There some law error in my decision maker authorities. The Respondent’s decision to refuse my appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or are a result of procedural error or unfairness. The Respondent’s failed to meet greater care and and duty to owed to a self-represented claimant.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 21 October 2024. In those submissions, he claimed that owing to the lack of legal and language assistance, he was deprived of the right to make full grounds of appeal. He also claimed that there was real procedural unfairness and that the Board’s Decision was not read to him in his own language. He also contended that the authorities had been discriminatory towards him and that the Board’s refusal of his appeal was unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merits. In any event, his assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. His allegations are essentially a mere regurgitation of those submissions he had previously made before this Court in his appeal, which we had already considered and rejected in full: see [8] ‑ [17] of the Judgment. More importantly, his allegations are mainly directed at the Director and the Board’s Decision and he fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment. It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-arguing points which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014) at [2] and [3]. His assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has 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.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 8 October 2024 is dismissed.