Re Jagroop Singh

CACV 545/2021

[2022] HKCA 1439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 545 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 160 OF 2019)

__________________

__________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Decision :  28 September 2022

__________________

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 14 April 2022, 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 2 December 2021 in which he refused to grant extension of time for 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 27 April 2022, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ Respected Sir/Madam, It’s on 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.’

4.The applicant stated in his written submissions in summary the following points :

(1.)  It was not safe to return to his home country;

(2.)  His case was ignored, and the decision was not transparent;

(3.)  The Torture Claim Appeal Board ignored many things related to his case;

(4.)  He needs time to stay in Hong Kong to solve his problems.

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 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 and written submissions.

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 27 April 2022 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person