RE KOUROUMA ABDOULAYE

CACV 319/2020

[2021] HKCA 552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2419 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 15 March 2021, this Court (Chu JA and ST Poon J) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 22 July 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  On 22 March 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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 the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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.

6.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated the following as his grounds of appeal:

“My result of the High Court and the Court of Appeal is not satisfied. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. Please accept.”

7.  What was stated by the applicant does not constitute viable ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  He has simply not set out any proposed ground for appeal. 

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

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion.