Re Ahmed Abdul Shakoor

CACV 178/2020

[2021] HKCA 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1330 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung, Chu and Au JJA in Court

Date of Decision : 4 March 2021

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

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

I.     Leave to appeal

1.1This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time against the judgment of this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down on 20 November 2020 ([2020] HKCA 952). In that judgment we dismissed his appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 8 June 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 452) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.  The applicant filed his notice of motion on 30 December 2020 for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal.  He was 12 days late.

1.2Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 31 December 2020 that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 12 January 2021. Having considered his submission, we consider it appropriate to determine this application on paper and will proceed to do so.

II.     The applicant’s grounds

2.The applicant stated in the notice of motion that :

1)     Problems in his home country are growing; and

2)     He wants to stay safe and save his life.

2.2What the applicant stated in his supporting affirmation and written submissions may be summarized as follows :

1)     In his supporting affirmation, he stated that the reason he was late in filing his notice of motion was because he did not get his letter;

2)     In his written submissions, he stated that his enemies were waiting for his return.  He stated that the Director and the Board did not consider his claim.  He complained that he cannot work in Hong Kong.  He complained that the Director and the Board did not listen to his problems.

III.     Analysis

3.1Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may, if it considers appropriate, extend the time for making an application for leave to appeal.

3.2Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal, 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.

3.3In the present application, the applicant was late for 12 days.  The relevant factors in considering whether an extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at paragraph 1.4).

3.4The applicant stated that the reason he was late in filing his notice of motion was because he did not get his letter.  Presumably he was referring to the receipt of our judgment.  It is the duty of the litigant to give the Court an address which notice can come to his attention timely.  This responsibility falls squarely on the applicant: Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439 at paragraph 15.   

3.5In any event, the applicant has not shown any merits in his intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  His grounds of appeal are bare assertions.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). 

3.6For the above reasons, we decline to grant an extension of time to the applicant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 30 December 2020.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person