Re Mamun Mohammad Tuhin Al

CACV 72/2018

[2018] HKCA 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 72 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1149/2017)

______________________________

______________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By our judgment dated 25 July 2018 (Reasons for Judgment of 27 July 2018, [2018] HKCA 442), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 22 March 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 537) refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In his notice of motion filed on 30 July 2018, the applicant put forth the following grounds for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal:

“ - The claims that the judgment has made stated there is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds has not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

- Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.” (sic)

4.The applicant also filed an affirmation (exhibiting a copy of the reasons for judgment dated 27 July 2018) in support of his application on 30 July 2018.  The affirmation had no substantive contents.   

5.In his written submissions of 24 August 2018, the applicant set out the factual narrative of his case and submitted that high standards of fairness or minimum standards of procedural fairness were required in determining a non-refoulement claim.

6.In the reasons for judgment dated 27 July 2018, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the sole ground that the duplicate applications made by the applicant for leave to apply for judicial review amounted to an abuse of process.  Clearly, none of the matters set out in either the notice of motion or the written submissions had any bearings on that issue.

7.In the present application, the applicant did not pinpoint any error in the judgment.  We cannot find any reasonably arguable ground of appeal that justifies leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

8.The applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  There is no basis for us to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Thus, the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal to be granted. 

9.For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 30 July 2018.

The applicant acting in person