莊裕安 v. 終審法院司法常務官 and Another

CACV 216/2019
and CACV 217/2019
(Heard together)

[2021] HKCA 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 216 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 25/2019)

________________________

__________________________

CIVIL APPEAL NO 217 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1699/2018)

__________________________

(Heard together)

Before: Hon Lam VP, Au JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 1 February 2021

Date of Judgment: 26 April 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.We dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on 24 July 2020.

2.On 15 January 2021, the Applicant issued a second Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In that Notice of Motion, the Applicant referred to the issues raised in CACV 552/2019 and contended that those issues should also be considered in these appeals as well.

3.There was an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in CACV 552/2019.  That application was dismissed by another division of the Court of Appeal (Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA) on 29 January 2021.

4.The Registrar of Civil Appeals wrote to the Applicant on 18 January 2021 stating that the Applicant should not make a second application before this Court.  Instead he should apply for leave to the Appeal Committee within the prescribed time limit.

5.The Applicant lodged submissions on 1 February 2021.

6.Notwithstanding the Applicant’s request for oral hearing, we are of the view that the matter is suitable for disposition in accordance with the usual practice by way of paper determination.

7.In the submissions of 1 February 2021, the Applicant referred to the difficulty in finding a panel of three judges to sit in the Appeal Committee without infringing the rule against apparent bias in light of the history of his litigations which had been discussed in CACV 552/2019.

8.That argument, if sound, seems to us to be self-defeating because the application of the Applicant in the Second Notice of Motion is an application for leave to appeal “to the Court of Final Appeal”.  

9.In any event, as it had been explained in our judgment of 24 July 2020 in the dismissal of the First Notice of Motion, the composition of the Appeal Committee does not fall within the scope of CACV 216/2019 or CACV 217/2019.

10.There is no good reason for this Court to entertain a Second Notice of Motion.  It is an abuse of process and we strike out and dismiss the same accordingly.

The applicant acting in person