Re Shoukat Ali

CAMP 155/2021

[2022] HKCA 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 155 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1709 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  18 January 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 24 September 2021, this Court handed down our judgment ([2021] HKCA 1396)  refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 10 June 2020 which refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.On 8 December 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation and written submission, 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 has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5)  of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.The applicant’s notice of motion is late by more than six weeks, which is substantial delay.  The applicant stated in his affirmation that the delay was due to lack of knowledge and insufficient resources.  He has, however, provided no elaborations or particulars. 

7.We turn next to consider the merits of the intended appeal.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that 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.

8.The notice of motion did not contain any grounds in support of the application.  The written submission is substantially identical to the written submission he previously put in to support his application for leave to appeal out of time (see [17] of our judgment). 

9.We are of the view that the written submission does not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal. Importantly, it has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance.  Further, for reasons we gave at [18] of our judgment, the matters stated in the written submission are unarguable.

10.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it is futile to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.  

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.