RE PERVEZ MUHAMMAD

CACV 99/2021

[2021] HKCA 1658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 221 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 11 August 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang of 4 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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 11 October 2021 (“Notice of Motion”), for leave to appeal out of time, against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4   The applicant stated in his affirmation of 11 October 2021 that he applied for the Notice of Motion to be filed out of time and asked the Court to accept his notice.  No reason nor explanation was given at all for his delay.

1.5   Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant should on or before 25 October 2021 lodge with the Court his written submissions to support his Notice of Motion.  He lodged his submissions only on 27 October 2021 without explaining why he was late.

1.6   The applicant has stated in his Notice of Motion that he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal as there were many errors in the High Court decision and his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.  

1.7   In his written submissions, he repeated his claim that workers for his opposition political party Pakistan Muslim League (Newaz) wanted to kill him and that was why he came to Hong Kong and applied for non-refoulement.  

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 and his submissions 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 what is stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and his 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 11 October 2021 is dismissed.