Re Md Serajul Munir Alias Munir Abms

CAMP 142/2024, [2026] HKCA 1899

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 142 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1225 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 30 April 2025, this Court handed down the judgment ([2025] HKCA 384) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 7 November 2023 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 22 July 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant also lodged written submissions consisting of three pages on 7 August 2025 being slightly out of time by two days. 

2)  Our view

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.The applicant’s present application is out of time by two days.  The applicant explained that he was not aware of the deadline.

7.As to the merit of the intended appeal, 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.

8.The notice of motion simply stated the following:

‘ I would like to inform to court of final appeal. There were some error in my law maker authorities. There were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I do not think my claim determined fairly.’

9.The three‑page written submission by the applicant stated that the applicant did not think his case was determined fairly.  He submitted that it was not easy to appeal as he did not know how his case was determined.  He said he was never provided with legal and language assistance.  He complained of various breaches in procedural fairness, and that it was unacceptable that non‑refoulement cases are quickly disposed.

10.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

3)  Disposition

12.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person