Re Ilias Mohammad

CACV 416/2018

[2019] HKCA 272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 995 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 27 December 2018, this Court (Cheung JA and L Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 24 August 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 25 January 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there was error in law in our judgment and our judgment did not address the issues in his skeleton submissions of 16 November 2018.

1.4The applicant lodged his written submissions on 8 February 2019.  He repeated that our judgment did not address the issues in his skeleton submissions of 16 November 2018.  

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.  As apparent from [20]-[23] of our judgment, we had considered his submissions.  His complaint is without merit.

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 dated 25 January 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person