Re Manpreet Singh

CACV 286/2020

[2021] HKCA 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 286 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1327 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 21 January 2021, this Court (Chu JA and ST Poon J) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 July 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 27 January 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 applicant stated in his notice of motion that he has problem in his country and cannot go back at this time because there is still danger for him.  He asked to be allowed to stay here for longer time so that he can resolve his problem.

7.The content of the applicant’s written submission is the same as that in the written submission in support of his appeal (see [11] of our judgment).

8.What the applicant put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  The matters put forward by the applicant relate solely to his personal circumstances and his case.  Further, for the reasons given in [13] to [19] of our judgment, the arguments in his written submission have no merits.       

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

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.