Re Ali Zeeshan
Read the full judgment text of CACV 342/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 March 2019.
2. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘ HKCFAO ’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 342/2018 [2019] HKCA 270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 902 OF 2017) ________________________
________________________
________________________ D E C I S I O N ________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) : 1) Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal 1.1On 24 December 2018, this Court (Cheung and Poon JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 13 July 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. 1.2The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here. 1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 28 December 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 1.4The applicant lodged his written submissions on 10 January 2019. The contents contained in his notice of motion and written submissions are substantially the same. He repeated that he should be given an oral hearing for his BOR 2 claim. 2) Legal principles 2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 3) Our view 3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or written submissions. 3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). 4) Disposition 4.For these reasons, the notice of motion filed on 28 December 2018 is dismissed.
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 342/2018