Dol Bahadur Adhikari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 323/2019

[2021] HKCA 336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 323 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2521 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung, Chu JJA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  30 December 2019(late)

Date of Judgment:  24 March 2021

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 22 November 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 4 July 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

2.The 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.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 10 December 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.The thrust of the applicant’s grounds as stated in the notice of motion (and written submissions which was lodged late in time) is that the lack of language assistance for his case was being ignored.  He stated that the Court of Appeal’s judgment was in English and he did not understand the judgment, and yet the entirety of his notice of motion were written in plain and simple English which can be easily followed and understood.  It follows that it is most likely that the applicant either understands English, or has access to help from others that can assist him in English documentations: Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at para §13.

5.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.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 and written submission.  

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

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 10 December 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.