RE AHMED WAQAS

CAMP 487/2022

[2024] HKCA 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 487 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 318 of 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 13 December 2023, this Court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 1345)  refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 April 2022, which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  On 14 December 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in a written submission to support the 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 has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.  Other than stating that the applicant did not get justice and wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice, the notice of motion does not set out any ground to support the application.  Plainly, the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.