RE FATAJO ABDOULIE

CAMP 228/2019

[2020] HKCA 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 228 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 60 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down judgment on 10 January 2020 ([2020] HKCA 41) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) given on 24 April 2019 refusing to give leave for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim. The applicant had taken out a summons on 5 July 2019 for extension of time to appeal, which the Judge dismissed on 14 August 2019. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 10 January 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 20 January 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on a date extended to 31 March 2020 by order of the court dated 16 March 2020, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.  The applicant filed his written submissions on 16 March 2020. 

4.  The applicant stated the following in his Notice of Motion without particulars:

“I want to challenge the decision dated on 10 January 2020, because the Decision is unreasonable.”

5.  In his written submissions, the applicant repeated his submissions that his appeal was late because of the change of his address.  However, the applicant had advanced these submissions previously which had been duly considered by the Judge and this court.  

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 10 January 2020 is dismissed.