Re Nirmal Singh
Read the full judgment text of CACV 215/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 April 2021.
1. Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 January 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 9 November 2020 ( [2020] HKCA 920 ), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 17 June 2020 ( [2020] HKCFI 1185 ) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”), refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 26 January 2018 (“Board’s Decision”) of the Torture Clai
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 215/2020 [2021] HKCA 606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 215 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 218 OF 2018) -----------------------------------
----------------------------------- Before: Hon Chu JA, Lisa Wong and ST Poon JJ in Court Date of Written Submission: 19 January 2021 Date of Judgment: 30 April 2021 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court): Application 1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 January 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 9 November 2020 ([2020] HKCA 920), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 17 June 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 1185) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”), refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 26 January 2018 (“Board’s Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim (“NRF Claim”). Paper disposal appropriate 2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. We agree that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case. Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA 3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision. Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA 4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion and affirmation filed on the same date as follows (sic):
5.Second, by his written submission lodged on 19 January 2021, the applicant contended as follows (sic):
Discussion 6.The applicant was admittedly late in making his application for leave to appeal to the CFA, without giving any acceptable explanation for the delay. In our view, the applicant’s bare assertions of “lack of knowledge” and “insufficient resources” do not justify the delay. 7.Most importantly, the applicant has not by the aforesaid notice of motion, affirmation or written submission raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise. 8.Nor do we see any basis to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.
9.Neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met. Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 215/2020