RE NANNU MD

CACV 3/2019

[2019] HKCA 991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 482 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 10 May 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 24 December 2018 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 29 May 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  The content of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  Trying our best, it seems the applicant was saying that there was ‘some error of law’ in his decision; the decision maker relied on information which was not in his favour; the country of origin information was different from what was in fact actually happening in his country and there was overwhelming evidence of violence towards him.  He complained that there was general bias and unreasonableness. All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5  The applicant’s written submissions in support of his application also lacked specificity and relevance. It is a pro forma document that is commonly used in this type of application.  It sets out broad and general terms, legal principles, concepts and statutory provision for non-refoulement or constitutional law cases.  They are simply legal propositions without more.

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 her notice of motion and written submission 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 she has raised in her notice of motion or written submissions.

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 29 May 2019 is dismissed.