Re Masoom Parvez

CACV 261/2017

[2019] HKCA 1040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 261 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 266/2017)

________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 19 March 2018 ([2018] HKCA 163), the court (Cheung CJHC, as Cheung PJ then was, Lam VP, and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 10 November 2017 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Over 15 months later, the applicant filed a notice of motion on 8 July 2019 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.In the notice of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“ I am very sorry that I apply after a long time because I got Order of the Court on 05-07-2017 from my friend’s. That’s why I failed to report on Your Honour’s Court before. Upon reading the Order by The Honourable Justice that my appeal for leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. I would like to appeal on Your Honour’s Court against that. I cannot go back in my Country (India) because my life is in Danger in my Country. So I would like to kindly appeal. Your Honour’s to please accept my request and allow me to stay in Hong Kong.”

4.In his affirmation dated 8 July 2019, the applicant repeated the reason for delay that he has only recently received the Order of 5 July 2017 from his friend.

5.The length of delay in this case is substantial. The delay is inexcusable.  First, the Court did not make any order of 5 July 2017 in the appeal.  Second, and most importantly, the applicant collected the judgment in person and he had acknowledged receipt of a copy of it by appending his signature on the court’s letter of 19 March 2018.

6.In the premises, the applicant did not provide any valid ground for us to exercise our discretion to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time: section 24(5) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), see: Full Wisdom Holdings Ltd v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd CACV 266/2003, 27 July 2004; Bowlstar (HK) Ltd v Ho Kwai Po CACV 156/2006, 10 July 2007, Elijah Saatori v Raffles Medical Group CACV 109/2008, 11 March 2009, and Tsit Wing (Hong Kong) Company Limited & Others v TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd & Another (unreported) CACV 191/2013, 29 January 2015. 

7.In any event, nothing in the notice of motion or in the supporting affirmation raises any questions of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  There is no basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are not met. 

8.For these reasons, we refuse to extend time for the applicant to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and dismiss the application for leave accordingly.

The applicant acting in person