RE SHARMA SURESH

CACV 455/2024, [2025] HKCA 367

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2039 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

A.  BACKGROUND

1.  On 5 March 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 28 October 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  At that time, the applicant’s ground of appeal was that:

“I am not satisfied with the decision given by Torture Claims Appeal Board, since the decision are made without looking and concerning the relevant issues.”

3.  He further stated in the affirmation filed in support of the said appeal that:

“I am the applicant here in. The decision made by the High Court Judge KW Lung has been reached unfairly without allowing mean opportunity to clearify my case and situation in my country. It’s not sufficient that was a litigant in person and unrepresented, there by making me unware of rules regarding 14-days time limit”

4.  His appeal was therefore dismissed by this Court because he simply failed to particularise his complaint and demonstrate that the learned Judge had made any error in law, had failed to take into account relevant matters, or that the decision was otherwise plainly wrong.

B.  THE PRESENT APPLICATION

5.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 10 March 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. As far as his grounds of appeal are concerned, in essence, he contended that:

(a)  This Court had erred in concluding that the Judge had not failed to appreciate the significance of his non-refoulement claim;

(b)  The lack of assistance provided to him in the Court below is an error of law or procedure;

(c)  There was a “lack of evidential consideration of the issues” in the learned Judge’s Judgment.

6.  In his written submissions dated 24 March 2025, he basically repeated his complaints that he had not been rendered any assistance in the court procedures, and he did not understand many of the Court documents including the Call-1 Form of the learned Judge.  He also complained that he had been deprived of an oral hearing.

7.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

C.  DISCUSSION

8.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

9.  From the documents relied on by the applicant, it can be seen that he has simply failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised, not to mention that the complaints which he is now making have not been put forward in his appeal before us.

10.  Further, neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our Judgment. 

11.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  His complaint of being deprived of an oral hearing is totally groundless because he should be well aware of paragraph 5 of the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 31 December 2024, which stipulated that he shall be deemed to waive his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and elect to have the appeal disposed of on paper in the event he failed (which he indeed did fail) to lodge skeleton argument no less than 28 days before the appeal.

D.  DISPOSITION

12.  To conclude, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The Notice of Motion filed on 10 March 2025 is therefore dismissed.