RE MUNIR QAISER

CACV 10/2018

[2018] HKCA 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 10 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 93/2017)

________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  After hearing the applicant on 8 June 2018, we handed down our judgment on 12 June 2018 dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 5 January 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 5 July 2018, the applicant issued a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the notice that he approached the High Court Registry on 3 July 2018 and he was told that no judgment was available at that time. 

3.  Notwithstanding the direction for lodging of submissions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant did not lodge any written submission in support of his application.

4.  Having reviewed the materials before us, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice provided under Practice Direction 2.1 that an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is to be processed on the paper without any oral hearing.

5.  The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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 matters set out in the notice of motion are not valid grounds for appeal.  As a matter of fact, we announced at the end of the hearing on 8 June 2018 that judgment would be handed down on 12 June 2018 at 9:30 am.  The applicant did not come to court to collect the written judgment. As we had told him at the hearing of 8 June, a copy of the judgment was sent by post on 12 June 2018 to him at the address given by him in his notice of appeal.

7.  In any event, there is no question of great general or public importance involved in the matter. We cannot see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  Having reviewed the documents, we can find no basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to section 22(1)(b).   

9.  Accordingly, the notice of motion dated 5 July 2018 is dismissed.