Re Rajendran Sathiyaseelan

CACV 384/2021

[2023] HKCA 288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2771 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 30 November 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 5 August 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 9 December 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 inform Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision. I am disagree with the decision of authorities and court because there were totally relied of COI information and web news and my previous facts which were faver on Reject my claim. Its toward to my life in my home land in India. I do not want to go back to my home country because my life in in danger in India.’

4.The applicant lodged written submissions which stated, in summary, that the decision makers breached procedural fairness. 　They failed to meet a greater care of duty. 　They did not take care of torture claimants. 　They relied on sources of information which was not officially recognized, and are hearsay, and they relied on cases which were outdated.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’)  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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion.  They are bare allegations without specifics or particularity on what it was that was said to be the Judge’s error.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, we will dismiss the notice of motion filed on 9 December 2021.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person