|
CACV 481/2019
[2020] HKCA 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 481 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 85 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
CHARAN KAMAL |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung, Barma and Au JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
6 July 2020 |
| Date of Judgment: |
6 October 2020 |
____________________
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 22 June 2020, the applicant applied by Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“the CFA”) against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA) judgment of 9 June 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 453.
2. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 8 October 2019 [2019] HKCFI 818 refusing leave to apply for judicial review.
3. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.
4. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the 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.
5. In the applicant’s Notice of Motion and his written submissions lodged on 6 July 2020, he simply repeated his claim that he would face danger if he were to be refouled. Other than that, he did not identify any errors in the Judgment.
6. These are therefore not viable grounds of appeal, and the intended appeal has no merits.
7. Further, and in any event, the applicant had failed to identify any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision. Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb. Plainly, the statutory requirements under section 22(b) of the HKCFAO are not met.
8. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Aarif Barma) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person.
|