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

Re Rahman Mojibur

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date30 July 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 1111
Year2021
Judgement NumberCACV497/2020
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV497A/2020 RE RAHMAN MOJIBUR

CACV 497/2020

[2021] HKCA 1111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 497 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1281 OF 2018)

________________________

RE: RAHMAN MOJIBUR Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Au JA and Coleman J in Court

Date of Judgment: 30 July 2021

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Coleman J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 22 April 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Coleman J) judgment of 9 April 2021 (“the Judgment”) [2021] HKCA 492. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 June 2020, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

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. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant only repeated that it was impossible for him to return to his home country. Other than that, he failed to advance any grounds of appeal. Further, the applicant did not lodge the written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

5. In the circumstances, there is simply no viable ground of appeal against the Judgment.

6. In any event, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.

(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal		 (Russell Coleman)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

The applicant acting in person

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