Re Mehmood Ikhlas
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 28A/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 August 2019 before Poon Ag CJHC, Lam VP, Cheung JA.
Civil proceedings – judicial review – application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – whether question of great general or public importance arises – whether 'or otherwise' limb applies – applicant acting in person – prior refusal of extension of time to appeal – intended judicial review held to have no prospect of success – applicant failed to lodge written submissions or address Court's earlier reasoning – section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – CAMP 28A/2019 – appeal from HCAL 1104/2017 – application dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cites 2 cases
|
CAMP 28/2019 [2019] HKCA 980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 28OF 2019 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1104/2017) _________________
_________________
___________________ JUDGMENT ____________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.By the judgment dated 27 May 2019 (published as [2019] HKCA 567), the Court (Lam VP and Poon JA) refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against a decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 12 November 2018. 2.In his notice of motion filed on 3 June 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following ground:
3.In the affirmation filed on 3 June 2019 in support of this application, the applicant repeated that the decision was unreasonable, and deposed that the decision failed to take into account many things and issues. 4.Notwithstanding he was directed to do so, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of the application. 5.In the judgment, the Court dismissed the applicant’s application on the ground that the intended judicial review had no prospect of success. In this application, the applicant did not address our reasons, let alone demonstrating we were wrong in that regard. 6.In our view, nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant’s affirmation merits submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination. 7.The applicant did not raise any question of great general or public importance. There is no basis to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb. The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). 8.Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The applicant acting in person |