A A

B
CACV 2/2021 B
[2021] HKCA 1455
C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

D D
COURT OF APPEAL
E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2021 E

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1439 of 2018)

F F
__________________________
G G
RE MOHAMMED ASGAR Applicant
H H
__________________________
I I
Before: Hon Chu JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court
J Date of Judgment: 7 October 2021 J

K K
________________
L L
JUDGMENT
M ________________ M

N N
Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:
O O

1. On 27 August 2021, this Court handed down our judgment1

P P
dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High
Q Court Judge C P Pang given on 23 December 2020 which refused to give Q

him leave to apply for judicial review.

R R

S 2. On 6 September 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to S

apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final
T T

U 1
[2021] HKCA 1239. U

V V
A - 2 - A

B
Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has B
not put in any written submission to support his application.
C C

D 3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no D

reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for

E E
leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral
F hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s F

application on the basis of the documents in the case.

G G

H 4. The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have H

been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

I I

J 5. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final J

Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
K K
may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by
L reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be L

submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

M M

N 6. The notice of motion stated that the applicant could not accept N

this Court’s decision because the decision maker relied only on a simple
O O
hearsay, was irrational, and disregarded his security. It also said that the
P decision was unfair and the judges might not have analysed the applicant’s P

appeal. It further complained that the decision was unreasonable and that
Q Q
high standards of fairness are required in the determination.
R R

7. We are of the view that the matters put forward in the notice
S S
of motion do not provide viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the
T Court of Final Appeal. Firstly, the notice of motion has not set out or T

identified any question of great general or public importance, as required

U U

V V
A - 3 - A

B
by section 22(1)(b). Secondly, the applicant only put forward general B
complaints about the decision but had given no particulars or details to
C C
support the assertions.

D D

8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the

E E
“otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
F F

9. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are

G G
not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.
H H

I I

J J

K (Carlye Chu) (Mimmie Chan) K

Justice of Appeal Judge of the
L
Court of First Instance L

M M
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

N N

O O

P P

Q Q

R R

S S

T T

U U

V V