Re Bhujel Tek Bahadur

CACV 218/2022, [2024] HKCA 278

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 618 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

I.   Leave to appeal

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment dated 14 March 2023 ([2023] HKCA 339) (‘CA Judgment’).  The material facts relevant to the present application have been set out in the CA Judgment and we do not intend to repeat them here.

2.In the notice of motion filed on 14 April 2023, the applicant 1) stated that he did not want to return to his country because his life is still in danger and he would face hardship if he returned; and 2) gave an example of what had happened to a different individual upon returning to their home country.  In his affirmation filed in support, the applicant simply stated that he had received the CA Judgment and requested for leave to appeal to be given.

3.The applicant had also lodged written submissions on 28 April 2023 in accordance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (‘Directions’).  In those submissions, he cited authorities and contended that high standards of fairness were required in the determination of his claim.   He submitted that the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.   He also referred to other authorities for the proposition that a decision of an administrative body was liable to be set aside if it was reached unreasonably.

II.      Our view

4.We see no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining the present application on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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 matters set out in the notice of motion are vague and are bare allegations without any particulars and evidence in support.  Having regard to our judgment, they are in substance, an impermissible regurgitation of the arguments advanced and rejected by the Judge.   The example raised by the applicant is devoid of particulars and in any event irrelevant to the present case.

7.The written submissions do not add anything of substance.  In particular, the Board had only come to its conclusion upon hearing the applicant at an oral hearing; and it is plain that the Judge had subjected the Board’s decision to rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, and he was well‑aware of the high standards of fairness to be observed by the Board in its consideration of the applicant’s claim, as well as of the principle of irrationality.

8.In any event, the documents filed and/or lodged by the applicant do not identify any mistakes in the CA Judgment and do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great 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 raised in such documents.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For the reasons set out above, the notice of motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person