Re Tarsem Singh

CACV 147/2021

[2022] HKCA 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1319 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 27 September 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chow JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 25 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 4 October 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.   We will deal with the present application on paper without an oral hearing. 

4.The applicant stated in his notice of motion:

‘ Respected Sir / Madam, it’s an my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness.’

5.In his written submissions, he stated that it was not safe for him to return to his home country.  He stated that the Board ignored many things.  He stated that there are internet videos showing how people like him are treated.  He said it is difficult to get justice in a corrupted environment.  He wishes to stay in Hong Kong until his problems are solved.

II.  Our view

6.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.

7.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 or written submissions. 

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

9.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 4 October 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person