Akbar Md Faishal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CACV 298/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 November 2021.
1. On 5 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) striking out the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal dated 8 June 2021 and dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 3 June 2021 whereby the Judge struck out the Applicant’s Form 86 dated 8 March 2018 on the ground of abuse of process and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Clai
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 298/2021 [2021] HKCA 1636 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 298 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 376 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court Date of Written Submission: 27 October 2021 Date of Judgment: 15 November 2021 ____________________ JUDGMENT ____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 5 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) striking out the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal dated 8 June 2021 and dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 3 June 2021 whereby the Judge struck out the Applicant’s Form 86 dated 8 March 2018 on the ground of abuse of process and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 June 2017. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.In his written submissions dated 27 October 2021, the Applicant repeated his claimed fear of harm upon return to India. 4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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. 5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance. 6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 298/2021