Re Madbor Rasal
Read the full judgment text of CACV 94/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 January 2022.
1. On 11 August 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and B Chu J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 2 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 94/2021 [2022] HKCA 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2465 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court Date of Judgment: 20 January 2022 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) : I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal 1.On 11 August 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and B Chu J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 2 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. 2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here. 3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 25 August 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant simply stated in his notice of motion that he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal. 4.In the applicant’s written submission, he stated that state agencies wanted to kill him. He fled to Hong Kong for his life. He wants to go to Court of Final Appeal ‘for the great interest of my life safety’. II. Legal principles 5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. III. Our view 6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion. 7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. IV. Disposition 8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 25 August 2021 is dismissed.
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 94/2021