Muhammad Nabeel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 80/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 November 2021.
1. On 26 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 9 March 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal an earlier order of the judge dated 14 September 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 26 February 2018.
Cited by 1 case
|
CAMP 80/2021 [2021] HKCA 1763 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 80 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 693 OF 2018) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court Date of Judgment: 30 November 2021 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 26 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 9 March 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal an earlier order of the judge dated 14 September 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 26 February 2018. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 1 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 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. 4.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 Appeal Ordinance. 5.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 CAMP 80/2021