RE ISLAM MANIRUL AND OTHERS

CACV 283/2020

[2021] HKCA 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1810 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1) Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 18 March 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 9 July 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review.  This Court, however, allowed the 3^rd applicant’s appeal and gave him leave to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The 1^st and 2^nd applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 13 April 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper. 

1.4  They stated in the notice of motion that our decision was unfair, and that they were not legally represented.  There are no particulars or specificity in these broad assertions.

1.5  Further, they stated that they reserved the right to provide more information later, and that they will be making an application for legal aid.  No particulars were given as to timing.

1.6  The 1^st and 2^nd applicants did not lodge any written submissions by the stipulated deadline.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the 1^st and 2^nd applicants in their notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st and 2^nd applicants have failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters they have raised in their notice of motion. 

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 13 April 2021 is dismissed.