RE IMASA ROLANDO HIPOL

CAMP 496/2022, [2026] HKCA 399

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 496 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 124 OF 2022)

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 7 November 2023, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 27 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  In short, the applicant’s Summons for an extension of time to appeal was struck out by reason of his non-compliance with an unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 November 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant did not set out any grounds or bases for his application whatsoever.

4.  In breach of the directors made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The applicant has wholly failed to put forward any grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also wholly failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

7.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 November 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person

CAMP 496/2022, [2023] HKCA 1226

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 496 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 124 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 27 May 2022, DHCJ Bruno Chan refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim (“the JR Decision”).

2.  On 25 November 2023, the applicant filed a summons in CAMP 496/2022 (“the Summons”) directly in the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal against the JR Decision.

3.  Pursuant to Order 59 rule 14(4) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), the applicant shall not in the first instance make an application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal unless there are special circumstances which make it impossible or impracticable to apply to the court below.  On 29 December 2022, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to inform the court on or before 10 January 2023 if he will be applying for extension of time to appeal from the lower court.  It was further directed that if the applicant does not apply for an extension of time from the court below and objects to the Summons being struck out, he may lodge written submissions on or before 10 January 2023 in support of his objection.

4.  The applicant failed to inform the court as to whether he will be applying for extension of time to appeal from the court below, and did not lodge any written submissions as directed.  He wrote to the court on 12 January 2023 stating that he had lost all his documents including the recognizance letter and asked the court to give him more time.

5.  On 18 January 2023, the Registrar of Civil Appeals made the following unless order (“the Unless Order”):

“Unless the applicant lodges written submissions on why the Summons should not be struck out on or before 8 February 2023, the Summons will be referred to the Court of Appeal to be struck out. The fact that the applicant has lost his recognizance papers is irrelevant to the timing of the lodging of such written submissions.”

6.  The applicant did not lodge any written submissions on why the Summons should not be struck out pursuant to the Unless Order.  He only wrote a letter to the court on 10 February 2023 asking the court to give him more time so that he can get the new original recognizance paper. 

7.  As the applicant has failed to comply with the Unless Order, and there is nothing before this court which demonstrates that there are special circumstances which make it impossible or impracticable for him to apply for extension of time to appeal to the court below, the Summons is dismissed accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person