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

Re Khan Wasiq

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date22 January 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 55
Year2019
Judgement NumberCACV300/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV300A/2018 RE KHAN WASIQ

CACV 300/2018

[2019] HKCA 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 300 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1054/2017)

__________________________

RE: KHAN WASIQ Applicant

__________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, McWalters JA and L Chan J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 1 November 2018
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2019

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. By our judgment dated 10 October 2018 (published as [2018] HKCA 689), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 29 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1435) refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2. By his notice of motion filed on 18 October 2018, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He supports his application by his written submissions of 1 November 2018.

3. In short, the applicant put forth the following grounds for seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal:

(1) We erred in concluding that the lack of legal representation did not give rise to procedural unfairness before the adjudicator;

(2) We erred in rejecting the applicant’s attempt to introduce new evidence; and

(3) We erred in the assessment of state protection and state acquiescence.

4. As explained in our judgment of 10 October 2018, we addressed these three grounds based on established principles. Our rejection at [16] of the judgment of 10 October 2018 of the attempt to raise new assertions unsupported by evidence was an exercise of discretion on the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is difficult to see any ground for challenging our decision in that regard. The applicant did not even address this aspect in his submissions.

5. Stripped of those assertions, there is no basis whatsoever to ground his contention on state protection and state acquiescence.

6. Notwithstanding the attempts to re-argue the points in the submissions of 1 November 2018, we are not satisfied that the grounds in the notice of motion are reasonably arguable.

7. Further, in the notice of motion and his submissions the applicant did not raise any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine. We also see no...

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