Re Kandiara Gursewak Singh

CACV 34/2020

[2022] HKCA 1286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1334 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 9 September 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 6 December 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for relief from sanction for failing to observe the unless order dated 15 September 2020 whereby he was required to lodge two sets of appeal bundle for his appeal by no later than 13 October 2020 failing which his appeal would be dismissed.

2.The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 22 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant essentially repeated his arguments in the application for relief from sanction, namely that due to the missing name of the road in his address, he was unable to receive orders of the court (including the unless order).  He also repeated his complaints of lack of legal and language assistance in the proceedings below.

4.In his written submissions lodged on 5 January 2022, the applicant again repeated his complaints as stated in the Notice of Motion.                                      

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.We have already provided our reasons as to why the applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the non-compliance with the unless order (see [19] of our decision dated 6 December 2021).  The applicant’s complaints as to lack of legal and language assistance were also dealt with at [20] to [21] of our decision dated 6 December 2021.

7.In any event, the matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 22 December 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person