RE MOHAMMED SALIK

CACV 281/2018

[2019] HKCA 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 281OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 628/2017)

________________________

________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.  By our judgment dated 9 November 2018 ([2018] HKCA 816), we (Lam VP and Barma JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 25 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1308) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  In his notice of motion filed on 22 November 2018 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant gave the following grounds to support the application:

(1) The applicant had not utilized the channel of appealing to the Board against the Director’s decision in respect of his BOR 2 risk; and

(2) We have failed to consider his ground of appeal in relation to the Judge’s failure to provide an opportunity for clarification, rendering the process unfair.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 6 December 2018, the applicant repeated the grounds as set out in his notice of motion.

4.  The ground that the applicant had not utilized the channel of appeal in respect of his BOR 2 risk had not been canvassed in the appeal. In any event, it has no merit: see: Re Alam Mohammad Nazir [2018] HKCA 558 at [22]; and ReMoktan Bijay Bahadur [2018] HKCA 746 at [17].

5.  The second ground related to para 17 of judgment which was given after an oral hearing before the judge. We have addressed the same at [14] to [16] in the judgment of 9 November 2018.

6.  Nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s written submissions raise any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is there any basis for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.  We are not satisfied that the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is met.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The notice of motion is dismissed accordingly.