Re Rasu Ramakrishnan

CACV 472/2018

[2019] HKCA 601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 153 OF 2018)

____________________________

____________________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the decision of the Court) :

1.On 22 February 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 13 September 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as our reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant now applies, by notice of motion filed on 13 March 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.    

4.The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 15 March 2019 that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing unless otherwise directed. Pursuant to the same directions, the applicant has lodged with the Court his supporting written submissions on 26 March 2019.  We will determine the applicant’s application on paper.

5.The applicant stated in his notice of motion and his supporting written submissions that, and he insists that, he has never received information requiring him to submit additional information in support of his BOR 2 claim.  He repeated that he had no legal representation for putting forward the BOR 2 claim. 

6.His BOR 2 complaint had been addressed by the Judge which we had summarized in our judgment.  In any event, the matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484).  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or his written submissions.

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

8.For these reasons, the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 13 March 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person