Re Shrees Kumar

CACV 332/2018

[2019] HKCA 316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 332 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 684 of 2017)

___________________________

___________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 14 December 2018, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 12 July 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  On 24 December 2018, we handed down our reasons for judgment[1].  

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 8 January 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant did not put in any written submission to support of his application. 

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

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 stated:

“I am not satisfied with the decision because I have problem in my own country. Please help me to stay in Hong Kong until I have problem. I hope I will get your favour so that I can save my life.”

6.What was put forward in the Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  It has not set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal, let alone question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).      

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.