TAMANG BHIM BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 281/2020

[2022] HKCA 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 281 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 319 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 30 April 2021, this Court (Cheung JA, G Lam (as he then was) and S T Poon JJ) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 July 2020 in which he struck out and dismissed the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review.

1.2  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.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 6 July 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that we were wrong in not applying the principles of procedural unfairness, irrationality and simply the law properly.  None of these are provided with particulars.

1.4  The applicant filed his supporting affirmation where he stated that he was unaware of his Notice of Motion being out of time as he was a lay person.

1.5  The applicant also lodged his written submissions on 9 June 2021 and 19 July 2021. He stated various non-refoulement legal principles and relevant statutory provision without detailing how those provisions related to the particular circumstances of his case.

2)  Legal principles

2.  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.

3)  Ourview

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, affirmation 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, affirmation and written submissions. 

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 6 July 2021 is dismissed.