RE SALIM AHMED alias MD SALIM

CACV 432/2019

[2020] HKCA 544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 432 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 910/2018)

_______________________________

_______________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

Introduction

1.  On 7 May 2020, the Applicant applied by Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court (Lam V-P and M Ng J) of 23 April 2020.  In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 3 September 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 Court of Final Appeal (“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.  The Applicant set out the following grounds for leave to appeal in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ With respect I inform you that I couldn’t accept the decision made on 23 April 2020 by Judge, because there are some incorrect informations which are used by the court to make this decision. Decision maker relied just a simple heresay. The Judge might not verify all the matters which I gave to the Court in previous time. This decision make me irritational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. This decision was unfair and reflected my claims which is my life and death problem to go back to the home country.”[sic]

4.  Notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 7 May 2020 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1, he did not lodge any written submissions as directed under paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction.  The Court therefore processed the application on the papers based on materials already before us.

5.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion do not raise any question of great general or public importance.  Nor can we see any other reasons for submitting the matter to the CFA for decision.  The Applicant did not identify any specific information relied upon by this Court that was incorrect. 

6.  Further, the Applicant’s grounds for leave to appeal failed to engage with the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal and are patently unarguable. 

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