RE HOSSAIN FARUK

CACV 471/2018

[2022] HKCA 1443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 79 OF 2018)

__________________

__________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 11 April 2022, this Court (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) handed down a decision dismissing the applicant’s application for relief from sanction for failing to comply with an unless order.

2.  The facts and issues of the application as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 27 April 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to inform (sic) the Honourable Court that there is some error in law my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

4.  The applicant stated in his written submission cases and statute used in non-refoulement cases without specifying how they relate to the facts and issues in his case.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 27 April 2022 is dismissed.