Re Satnam Singh

CACV 160/2020

[2021] HKCA 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 160 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 236/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  11 January 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 10 November 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Lam VP and Pang JA) judgment of 28 October 2020. In that judgment we struck out and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 27 May 2020.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

3.In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]

4.Notwithstanding the Applicant’s acknowledgment on 10 November 2020 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 13 November 2020, the Applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of this application. 

5.The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion do not identify any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

6.In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person