Peter Ar Fu Lam v. Building Authority

HCMP 2878/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2878 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 113 OF 2015)

_______________

_______________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment handed down on 21 December 2015, this court (consisting of Lam VP and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s ex parte application for extension of time to appeal against the order of Au J dated 12 October 2015, refusing to grant him leave to judicially review the demolition order issued by the Building Authority on 20 March 2008 which required him to demolish a container erected or installed on the roof of his premises.

2.By a notice of motion dated 28 December 2015, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against that judgment.  He based the application on four issues :

“(1) Premature decision of HCAL 113/2015;

(2) Obvious unfair treatment throughout the appeal processes as a whole, towards an indulgence request of the Appellant as compared with all the indulgences previously granted to the Respondent as a whole;

(3) Questions of law of public interests, that may provide a great relief to general public sufferings;

(4)   Scope of Constitutional rights raised in the appeal processes as a whole.”

3.The applicant must satisfy us that these questions involved in his appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are ones which, by reason of their great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision : see section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

4.We have read the applicant’s written submissions dated 19 and 27 January 2016. His submissions are basically a re-run of the points previously advanced before Au J and this court, which had all been rejected.  His complaints about the procedural unfairness in the court proceedings are entirely misconceived and unmeritorious.  All in all, we fail to see how any of the points that he relied on could possibly satisfy the “great or general or public importance” limb or “the otherwise” limb in section 22(1)(b).

5.We accordingly refuse his application for leave to appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

Written submission by the applicant, unrepresented

No written submission from the respondent