Re Sakattar Singh

CAMP 112/2020

[2021] HKCA 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 112 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 662 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 26 February 2021

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 21 December 2020, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 20 February 2019 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 13 January 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the direction given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The notice of motion stated that the applicant did not agree with the refusal of his application, and that his problem in his country is growing day by day, yet the Board found there was no problem and the judge did not find any error of law.

7.We are of the view that what was stated in the notice of motion do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not set out any proposed ground of appeal.  Neither has he identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it is futile to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.