|
CACV 435/2019
[2020] HKCA 578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 435 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1741/2018)
_______________________________
| RE: |
REHMAN DANISH UR alias
REHMAN DANISH
|
Applicant |
_______________________________
Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 22 June 2020
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2020
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 June 2020, the Applicant filed his Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 28 May 2020.
2. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.
3. The Applicant has set out the following grounds for leave to appeal in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:
“ On 28 May 2020 the Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not agree with the judges, and judges were fail to show any good cause to cancel my leave. I did not get fair justice. To get fair justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
4. In his written submissions of 22 June 2020, the Applicant referred to the condition in Pakistan and stated his disagreement with the assessment by the Director and the Appeal Board. He also disagreed with the rejection of his application for judicial review.
5. The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and the Applicant’s submissions do not raise any discernible, let alone viable, grounds for leave to appeal to the CFA. We do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or otherwise that ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.
6. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA. Accordingly, we would dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.
(M H Lam)
Vice President |
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Derek Pang)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|