RE ROKA THIR BAHADUR

CACV 530/2020

[2021] HKCA 1386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 530 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 773 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Mimmie Chan J giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 27 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 20 January 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 5 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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, 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.

6.  The notice of motion stated that the Court had not applied the law properly and had failed to apply principles concerning procedural unfairness and irrationality.

7.  The written submission is identical to the one put forward by the applicant in support of his appeal before this Court (see [12] of our judgment).

8.  We are of the view that the matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Firstly, the matters stated in the notice of motion and written submission all relate to the circumstances of the applicant’s claim. They do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Secondly, for the reasons we gave at [18] to [20] of our judgment, the matters advanced by the applicant have no merits.

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.