Harvinder Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 374/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 June 2021.
1. On 28 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 26 April 2021. In that judgment the Court struck out and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 10 August 2020.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 374/2020 [2021] HKCA 761 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 542/2018) ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 6 May 2021 Date of Judgment: 4 June 2021 ________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 28 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 26 April 2021. In that judgment the Court struck out and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 10 August 2020. 2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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. 3.In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant requested time to stay in Hong Kong so that he can solve his problem, and stated that at the moment he cannot go back to his home country because the danger is still there for him. However, he did not specify any grounds for leave to appeal. 4.The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 6 May 2021. Those submissions are identical to his written submissions on the substantive appeal, which the Court had already addressed and rejected. 5.As explained in the judgment of 26 April 2021, the subject decision of the Director (of 20 July 2016) which he sought leave to apply for judicial review had been reversed by the Board. The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 26 April 2021 for striking out and dismissing his appeal. They do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment. 6.There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. 7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.
The applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 374/2020