Re Ganesan Sathiyaraj

CACV 182/2020

[2021] HKCA 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1637 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) :

1.Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 20 November 2020, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 2 June 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘decision of the Judge’).

1.2The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 2 December 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there was a failure by the decision makers to take into account the psychological stress of him.  There was also a failure to give reasons for refusing his case.  There was insufficient basis to reject his case.

2.Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4.Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 2 December 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person