Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Doly Sharmin Akther

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date19 March 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 265
Year2019
Judgement NumberCACV301/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV301A/2018 RE DOLY SHARMIN AKTHER

CACV 301/2018

[2019] HKCA 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1135 OF 2017)

_____________________

RE: DOLY SHARMIN AKTHER Applicant

_____________________

Before: Hon Yeung Ag CJHC, Yuen and Pang JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 19 March 2019

_______________________

JUDGMENT

_______________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. By a judgment dated 21 December 2018 ([2018] HKCA 814) (“the Judgment”), this Court (Hon Yeung Acting CJHC, Yuen and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 28 June 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 July 2016 and 24 July 2017 and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 7 December 2017. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3. By a Notice of Motion dated 7 January 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

(1) It is not true that there is no substance in the grounds of the application;

(2) The applicant did not complain about the poor performance of the duty lawyer because he feared he would be picked out by the adjudicator for “misappropriating”; and

(3) The applicant genuinely did not have enough time to address the bundle.

5. In the supporting affirmation of the applicant filed on 7 January 2019, he further provided the following grounds:

“(i) The Honourable Judges from the Court were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement.

(ii) The Honourable Judges from the Court also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Bangladesh.”

6. According to the directions made by Master Au-Yeung, Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 January 2019, the applicant shall lodge with the court his written submissions in support of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT