RE SATTAR ABDUL

CACV 53/2019

[2019] HKCA 1032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1089 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 4 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 613), the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 23 January 2019 in HCAL 1089/2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 10 June 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.  In the notice of motion, the applicant complained that:

“1.  My complaint of the lack of proper language assistance was rebutted by the Court of First Instance on the basis that I married a local girl and therefore would have received necessary assistance.

2.  The Court of Appeal now says at [14] that “The fact that the applicant was married to local girl was not relied on before the Judge and in any event, that is not a relevant factor for the purpose of this appeal”.

3.  They are clearly contradictory and prove that the Judges have not made an all-rounded and reasonable judgement

4.  It was never my argument that I be given interpretation service made available all the time.  Such service should be made available whenever reasonably necessary.  I respectfully submit that the right to understand a judgment made against me in my first language is crucial and should not be overlooked.  The lack of such language assistance is in a way a deprivation of right to seek further avenues of appeal and cannot be in the public interest.”

4.  On 11 June 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the Registrar”) directed the applicant to lodge with the court his written submissions on or before 24 June 2019.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 24 June 2019.  In his written submissions, he merely repeated what was set out in the notice of motion.

5.  The Registrar also directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application shall be determined on paper accordingly.

6.  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. Here, the complaints set out in the notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant merely regurgitated the arguments on lack of language assistance which was advanced and rejected by the Judge and the Court of Appeal.

7.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 4 June 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involved an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave under the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

8.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.