Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq
Read the full judgment text of CACV 272/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 June 2018 before Lam VP, Chu JA, Barma JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – s.22(1)(b) Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – test of great general or public importance or otherwise – underlying appeal dismissed for non-compliance with unless order – applicant acting in person – applicant claimed inadequate resources – whether leave should be granted – whether question of great general or public importance arises – whether underlying appeal had arguable merit – Court of Appeal had previously assessed merits and found appeal wholly devoid of merit and fact-sensitive – written submissions lodged on 26 April 2018 raised no arguable point – applicant able to prepare and lodge English documents and written submissions, undermining resource claim – application processed on the papers without oral hearing – Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 328 cases
|
CACV 272/2017 [2018] HKCA 315 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 272 OF 2017 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 204 OF 2017) __________________________
__________________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This Court (Lam VP and Chu JA) handed down the judgment on 26 March 2018 refusing to grant relief from the dismissal of the appeal due to the failure of the applicant to comply with an unless order made on 19 December 2017. 2.On 3 April 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions (written in English) in support of his application on 26 April 2018. 4.The applicant said he did not have the necessary resource and assistance to prepare for the appeal. We do not accept this assertion. He did not appear to have difficulty to lodge his Notice of Appeal, Notice of Motion and various documents (all prepared in English). He also had no difficulty in complying with the directions to lodge written submissions in support of his Notice of Motion. 5.Having read his written submissions lodged on 26 April 2018, we are of the view that the Notice of Motion can be processed on the papers without any oral hearing. 6.In the judgment of 26 March 2018, the Court assessed the merits of the appeal at [21] to [28] by reference to the facts of this case. This was a case and fact sensitive assessment. For the reasons given, the appeal was wholly devoid of merit. There is nothing in the written submissions of 26 April 2018 which can take the applicant’s case further. 7.The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:
8.Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. There is no question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal. Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb. 9.The Notice of Motion of 3 April 2018 is therefore dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 272/2017