Re Narasinghe Mudiyanselage Kushan Priyankara

CAMP 432/2021

[2022] HKCA 1463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 432 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1652 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 25 April 2022, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 570) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 5 June 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 4 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not lodge any written submission despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.  

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment at [6].  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The notice of motion did not set out any grounds in support of the application and the applicant simply asserts he wishes to challenge our judgment.

7.The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal is devoid of merits and we dismiss the notice of motion dated 4 May 2022 accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person