Re Nambukara Tantrilage Don Asiri Charit Jayasuriya
Read the full judgment text of CACV 282/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 July 2020.
1. On 22 October 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Zervos and Au JJA and Coleman J) of 8 October 2019, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACV 282/2019 [2020] HKCA 513 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 282 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 720 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Coleman J (giving the Judgment of the Court): Introduction 1.On 22 October 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Zervos and Au JJA and Coleman J) of 8 October 2019, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review. 2.In his Notice of Motion the applicant set out the following grounds:
3.On 25 October 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that, pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant shall lodge with the Court his written submissions on or before 5 November 2019. 4.On 5 November 2019, the applicant filed written submissions. The applicant essentially repeated his claim. He said:
5.These grounds and submissions essentially repeated the matters which the applicant put before the Board. We do not think the application has merit. 6.As was explained to the applicant in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. In non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should nonetheless not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. 7.The applicant has failed to raise any question of great general or public importance that warrants submission to the Court of Final Appeal for consideration. The criteria provided for under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) have not been met. Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted under the “or otherwise” limb. 8.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 282/2019