Ibrahim v. Simon Russell, Esq

CACV 310/2019

[2020] HKCA 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 310 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1748/2018)

____________________

____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.In our judgment of 23 June 2020, we gave the Applicant 56 days to file the evidence mentioned at [11] and [12] of that judgment. We also indicated that if the Applicant fail to file such evidence within the time limit, we would proceed on the basis that he could not make good his case on flagrant denial of justice and deal with the appeal on the papers.

2.The Applicant did not comply with the direction to file the evidence within the time limit.  Instead, he wrote to the Court on 19 August 2020 seeking further 48 days to comply.

3.The Court replied on 21 August 2020 granting extension to him to file the evidence required under [11] by 21 September 2020 and the evidence required under [12] by 5 October 2020.

4.The Applicant again failed to file anything before such deadlines.  Neither did he write to the Court to explain for such failure.  By now more than 48 days has lapsed since 19 August 2020.

5.In the circumstances, it is plain that the Applicant did not have evidence to support his claim of flagrant denial of justice as discussed in Re Mohammad Palash [2018] HKCA 417. 

6.We therefore conclude that the Court should proceed with the rest of the appeal on the papers.

7.In our judgment of 2 December 2019, we have set out the background of the case and addressed the merits of the Applicant’s grounds of appeal and the grounds in the Form 86.  In a nutshell, we did not find those grounds to be reasonably arguable.  We held that the Judge gave adequate reasons to address the grounds set out in the Applicant’s affirmation.  On the materials before the Judge, given the upholding of the Board’s assessment on risk of harm, no issue could possibly be engaged concerning state acquiescence and there was thus no need for the Judge to address the same.

8.For the above reasons and those given previously in our judgments of 2 December 2019 and 23 June 2020, the Applicant failed to make good a case for leave to be granted to him to apply for judicial review. 

9.We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

The applicant acting in person