|
CACV 145/2020
[2021] HKCA 394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 578/2018)
____________________
| RE: |
NOUMAN MUHAMMAD |
Applicant |
__________________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu JA and G Lam J in Court
Date of Judgment: 1 April 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 January 2021, 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 15 December 2020. In that judgment Lam VP and G Lam J dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 25 May 2020 striking out and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.
3. In his Notice of Motion, his stated grounds for leave to appeal were that that the Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness to the Director of Immigration’s decisions, whereby the Director was required to given reasons justifying those decisions.
4. In his supporting affirmation of 4 January 2021, the Applicant deposed that he understood that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered by this Court. However, the Applicant did not identify such ground in the affirmation. We shall proceed in the basis that the ground(s) were those set out in his Notice of Motion.
5. Notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 4 January 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 6 January 2021, the Applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of this application.
6. In the judgment of 15 December 2020, this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal for abuse of process due to re-litigation. As such, the grounds for leave to appeal raised in his Notice of Motion completely failed to engage with the reasoning in that judgment.
7. The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.
8. We fail to see any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.
9. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicant’s Notice of Motion is dismissed accordingly.
(M H Lam)
Vice President
|
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|