RE ADNAN HAIDER

CACV 35/2020

[2021] HKCA 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1614 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1 On 20 November 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 15 January 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘decision of the Judge’).

1.2 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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3 The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 14 December 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4 The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there was error in our judgment.  He stated that country of origin information that was not in his favour was used against him.  He stated that there was violence against him.  The decision was with bias and adopted a formulaic approach.

1.5 The applicant in his written submissions cited case authorities and judicial review principles without focusing on any particulars of the circumstances of his case.  There was no allegation of error in the decision of the Judge.

2)  Legal principles

2. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1 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 great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or written submissions.

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

4)  Disposition

4. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 14 December 2020 is dismissed.