KHAN MD ATAUR RAHMAN v. CHAN LING LING TRACY , ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 453/2018

[2019] HKCA 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 453 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By a judgment dated 28 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 235), the Court of Appeal (Barma, Poon and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 7 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion dated 13 March 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ - The claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due to fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

- Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.”

3.  In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 15 March and 29 March 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 15 April 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant cited an extensive list of legal provisions and case authorities in relation to non-refoulement protection claim without explaining how they can assist his own case.

4.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

6.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.