Re Ali Wajid

CACV 327/2020

[2021] HKCA 1398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 327 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 514 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court

Date of Judgment:  24 September 2021

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 27 August 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 28 July 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 30 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may 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.

6.The notice of motion has not provided any ground in support of the application.  It only stated that the applicant wants to challenge the decision.   

7.Since the applicant has provided no ground for the application, and no question of great general or public importance has been identified, the requirement in section 22(1)(b) has not been met.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.  

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.