Re Edi Subagio

CACV 96/2019

[2019] HKCA 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1186 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1.Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 19 June 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 15 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and affirmation dated 24 June 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  The contents of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  It seems that the applicant is raising the following grounds : the contents of the judgment is not true when it criticized his claims are without substance and that he did not complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer because he was afraid to be picked out.  He reiterated that he did not have time to address the bundles before the Board.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5  The applicant’s affirmation exhibited copies of the Court’s judgment and order.  It contains complaints that the judges were wrong in law to hold that there was no state acquiescence, and that they failed to account for the current situation in Indonesia.  However, in reality, these are complaints against the Board, not the judges.

1.6  The applicant failed to comply with the Court’s directions of 9 July 2019 to lodge with the Court his written submissions by 4 pm on 25 July 2019.  The Court’s directions of 9 July 2019 were made on an ‘unless’ basis.  We are aware that the applicant had on 7 August 2019 lodged with the Court his written submissions, but due to his non‑compliance with the Court’s directions, we will not consider his written submissions in our determination of this application.

2.Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant 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 the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or affirmation.

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

4.Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 24 June 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person