Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 481/2018

[2019] HKCA 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 481 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 936/2017)

________________________

BETWEEN
	HALIM ABDUL	Applicant
	and
	KAY RANSOME, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

__________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 20 May 2019

Date of Judgment: 11 July 2019

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.By the judgment dated 26 March 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 354), this Court (Lam VP and B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 14 September 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 2054) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By his notice of motion filed on 15 April 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

3.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 May 2019 in support of his notice of motion. The applicant attached to his written submissions 4 documents, which were the same as those marked as exhibits A1, A2, A3, and A4 in the judgment. This Court has ruled at [21] – [36] of the judgment that these exhibits should not be admitted as evidence in the appeal.

4.The contents of his notice of motion and written submissions are substantially the same as those contained in his skeleton submission lodged before this Court on 24 January 2019[1]. This Court has already considered and rejected them in the judgment.

5.In this application, the applicant failed to engage with the reasons in rejecting the submissions and disallowing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal. For the reasons set out in the judgment, the applicant’s intended appeal is not reasonably arguable.

6.Further, the matters raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions do not involve any question of great general or public importance. There is also no reason for leave to be granted on the “or otherwise” limb. The statutory criterion in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met:

7.For these reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

(M H Lam)	(Aarif Barma)	(Bebe Chu)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal	Judge of the Court of
		First Instance

The applicant acting in person

[1] On 24 January 2019, the applicant lodged two sets of skeleton submissions. The first set (dated 10 December 2018) dealt with the grounds of appeal in general, and the second set (dated 24 January 2019) dealt with the admission of fresh evidence. We refer to the first set here.

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Halim Abdul v. Kay Ransome, Esq., Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Halim Abdul v. Kay Ransome, Esq., and Others

[2018] HKCFI 2054

High Court CFI14 Sep 2018

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case