Re Gurjant Singh

CACV 632/2020

[2022] HKCA 914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 632 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2954 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 5 July 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 4 October 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment allowing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 25 November 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for allowing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  Having granted the applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the Board’s decision, the applicant was (by our judgment at [22]) reminded to commence judicial review proceedings by Originating Summons within 14 days from the date of our judgment, being the date on which leave to bring judicial review proceedings was granted. 

3.The applicant did not subsequently file any Originating Summons.  However, the applicant instead filed a Notice of Motion on 11 October 2021 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s decision, which allowed his appeal.

4.The applicant’s course of action led to directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the Registrar”) on 15 October 2021 that he should address the court on or before 29 October 2021, by way of letter, as to why the Notice of Motion should not be dismissed.  The applicant failed to do so.

5.On 21 October 2021, the applicant lodged written submissions which merely restated the reasons for his desire to remain in Hong Kong, but did not address the matters as required by the Registrar.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.We are of the view that in light of our decision dated 4 October 2021, which allowed the applicant’s appeal, his Notice of Motion filed with this court is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

8.Not only did the applicant fail to comply with the directions of the Registrar, we have in any event considered the matters stated in his Notice of Motion and written submissions, which do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal nor amount to any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.The Notice of Motion dated 11 October 2021 is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant acting in person