RE HUSSAIN MUSTANSAR

CACV 631/2020

[2021] HKCA 1369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 846 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 23 July 2021, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 26 November 2020 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 29 July 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that :

‘ I am the applicant here in the order give to the Court, There is some error in my decision maker just relied on information and my previous facts which was favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different sitution. I have life Thread in my home Country.

I have requested to the Court that please provide me a legal represented.  I will be very thankful to The Court that Consider my request and make the decision on my favour.’

4.  The Registrar of Civil Appeal’s directions of 29 July 2021 was counter-signed by the applicant acknowledging receipt.  Those directions indicated that written submissions were to be lodged on or before 12 August 2021.  The applicant has not provided his written submissions despite the lapse of the stipulated deadline.

II.  Legal principles

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.

III.  Our view

6.  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 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. 

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

IV.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 29 July 2021 is dismissed.