RE SHARMA RAHUL

CAMP 245/2019

[2021] HKCA 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 245 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 191/2018)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 3 June 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 13 May 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 18 January 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  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.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the Director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. The Judge did not apply the law properly.” (sic)

4.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 23 June 2021.  Those submissions are identical to his prior submissions on the substantive appeal before us, which we had already addressed and rejected in our judgment. 

5.  The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion did not relate to the reasons for this Court’s holding that his intended appeal had no prospect of success.

6.  In the circumstances, there is no question of great general or public importance nor other reason for submitting the matter to the CFA for determination.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.