Re Oby Aguin

CACV 134/2021

[2022] HKCA 595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 930 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  29 April 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 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 Bruno Chan given on 19 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 11 October 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following:

‘ I would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court and Torture Claims Appeal Board. They disregarded my dangerous situation should I return to my home country.’

4.The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge skeleton submissions within time.

II.  Our view

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.

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion 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.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 11 October 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person