RE MD BABU MIA

CACV 220/2018

[2019] HKCA 131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 907 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1. On 12 December 2018, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 1 June 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2. On 13 December 2018, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submission.

3. Having considered the Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

4. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

5. The Notice of Motion stated that: (i) it is not true that there is no substance in the grounds of the application; (ii) the applicant did not complain about the poor performance of the duty lawyer because he feared he would be picked out by the adjudicator for “misappropriating”; and (iii) the applicant genuinely did not have enough time to address the bundle.  

6. The applicant’s affirmation set out two grounds of appeal, namely, (1) the Court was wrong in law in holding there was no state acquiescence; and (2) the Court failed to find out the details of the current situation in Bangladesh.

7. The matters stated in the Notice of Motion and the affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

8. Firstly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  What was stated in the Notice of Motion and written submission relate only to the circumstances of his case.  Secondly, the grounds set out in the Notice of Motion and in the affirmation bear no relevance to the applicant’s case, and the reasons given by this Court for dismissing his appeal: see [13] and [14] of our judgment. 

9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10. For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.