Re Dhaliwal Gurcharan Singh
Read the full judgment text of CACV 142/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 November 2018.
1. On 10 September 2018, this Court (Yuen and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 4 May 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACV 142/2018 [2018] HKCA 751 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 437 of 2017) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Yuen, Chu and Barma JJA in Court Date of judgment: 12 November 2018 _________________ JUDGMENT _________________ Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 10 September 2018, this Court (Yuen and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 4 May 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review. 2.By a Notice of Motion dated 17 September 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. On 4 October 2018, the applicant also put in a written submission in support of his application. 3.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1 on Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal in Civil Cases, we consider it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper without an oral hearing. 4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision. 5.The Notice of Motion set out the following grounds of appeal:
6.The written submission essentially repeated what was stated in the Notice of Motion. 7.The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submission relate to the facts of the applicant’s case. They are case-specific and do not involve any question of great, general or public importance. 8.Further, there is no merit in the complaint of lack of language assistance. The Notice of Appeal had set out the grounds of appeal in clear terms. 9.As to the complaint about the Board’s finding that internal relocation alternatives were reasonably available, this was not among the grounds for judicial review before the Judge. Nor was it one of the grounds of appeal before this Court. It is not open to the applicant to raise new issues and new arguments in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 10.In any event, this new ground is not reasonably arguable. In addition to Dilbag being a low level political figure, the Board also found, on the available information, that the Akali Dal Badal Party was only a very junior member of the coalition government, and the power of Dilbag has reduced since the 2016 Punjab election. The Board accordingly concluded there was no real risk of the applicant being harmed by Dilbag and the Akali Dal supporters if he was refouled to India and relocated to live in other parts of the country. There is no proper basis for the Court to interfere with the findings and conclusion of the Board. 11.There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 12.In the circumstances, the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 142/2018