Re Tarjinder Singh

CAMP 106/2019

[2021] HKCA 852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 106 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 640 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Cheung and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  15 June 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 11 January 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 19 June 2020 (“the Judgment”) [2020] HKCA 494.  In the Judgment, we refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal the decision of Campbell-Moffat J dated 2 March 2018, refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”), leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only 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.

4.Further, pursuant to section 24(2) of the HKCFAO, the application should be made within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Thus, the deadline for filing the present application expired on 17 July 2020.  The applicant is therefore almost six months out of time.

5.As the applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal within time, the court has a discretion to extend time under section 24(5) of the HKCFAO only if good and sufficient grounds are shown by the applicants.  In deciding whether there are such good grounds, the court is entitled to take into account (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the chances of the appeal succeeding if an extension of time is granted; and (d) the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted: Begum Jahanara v Ian Candy, Esq [2021] HKCA 83, per Lam VP at [4] and the authorities cited therein.

6.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

“- The claims that the Judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds not made complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.” [sic]

7.In the supporting affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant did not explain the delay but merely stated that he was out of time and requested the Court to grant him extension of time.  He also failed to lodge his written submissions pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

8.As mentioned above, the applicant fails to provide any explanation for such a significant delay.  In addition, his application is totally without merits.  Other than the aforesaid bare assertions, he fails in his grounds of appeal to pinpoint any specific errors in the Judgment.  These are not viable grounds of appeal against the Judgment. 

9.Further, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

10.For these reasons, it will be futile to extend time. We therefore refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA out of time, and dismiss the application.

The applicant acting in person