Re Gole Surya

CAMP 20/2019

[2019] HKCA 978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 20OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 7/2018)

________________

________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 6 June 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 627) refusing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 28 September 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 2102).

2.In his notice of motion dated 12 June 2019 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the applicant advanced the following grounds of appeal:

(a)   The Court failed to address issues (b) – (d) in his summons dated 31 January 2019;

(b)   It was unreasonable for the Court to dismiss the applicant’s claim for the lack of language assistance without taking into account his unique circumstances;

(c)   The Court should not dismiss his case without finding that he was aware of the contents of the judgment; and

(d)   It cannot be said language assistance would be of no use where the assistance was not given in the first place.

3.The applicant lodged written submissions in support of his notice of motion on 26 June 2019, where, in substance, the applicant repeated what was stated in the notice of motion.

4.It is observed at the outset that the applicant did not set out any issues, let alone issues (b) – (d), in his summons dated 31 January 2019. Insofar as he referred to our summary of his affirmation at [12] of the judgment of 6 June 2019, those matters have been addressed. The issue of language and legal assistance was addressed by the judge at [12] and [13] of the Form CALL-1, to which we saw no reasonable prospect of success in disturbing (as stated at [22] to [25] of the judgment of 6 June 2019). It is well settled that the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he may desire: see Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704; and Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658. 

5.Interpreter services were provided at hearings at every stage. Such services were also available at the time when the applicant was assisted by Duty Lawyer. All the court documents in the present case, including the affirmation filed in support of the leave application, the summons of 31 January 2019 and all the written submissions in support of the applicant’s applications were written in fluent English.   The applicant obviously has access to language assistance of his own if he deemed necessary.

6.We have also addressed the lack of direction to lodge draft grounds of appeal at [23] of the judgment of 6 June 2019.

7.In our judgment, none of the matters stated in the notice of motion or the written submissions constitute valid grounds of appeal.  Nor do such matters involve any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  We cannot see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Accordingly, the statutory thresholds for granting leave appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person