|
CACV 336/2020
[2021] HKCA 599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 336 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2980 OF 2018)
_________________
_________________
Before: Hon Au JA and G Lam J in Court
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 February 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 27 January 2021 (“the Judgment”).[1] In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 30 July 2020 which had in turn dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. We see no reason to depart from the usual practice, set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, of determining an application of this kind without an oral hearing.
3. 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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:
“ Respected sir/madam, its an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full to your kindness.” [sic]
5. The applicant failed to lodge any written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.
6. In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly without merit. The matters raised in the Notice of Motion fail to pinpoint any specific error in the Judgment. There is neither any question of great general or public importance nor any other reason why the appeal ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. The statutory requirements under section 22(1)(b) are not met.
7. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant acting in person
|