Re Brar Pritpal Singh

CAMP 337/2021

[2023] HKCA 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 337 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1311 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before: Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  6 January 2023

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 31 October 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 19 October 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 1543). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 25 March 2021, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 752).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant failed to set out any ground in support of his present application.

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 21 November 2022.  Those submissions are exactly the same as those written submissions lodged by the applicant on 25 August 2021 in support of his reapplication for extension of time against the Leave Decision before the Court.

6.In our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the applicant failed to give any details or grounds in support of his present application in his Notice of Motion.  His written submissions had already been fully considered and rejected by this Court at [17] ‑ [25] of the Judgment and the applicant did not point out any error in the Judgment.  Accordingly, his present application is a plainly a non‑starter and must fail.

7.Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, the applicant’s contentions are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person