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

Re Waryam Singh

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date30 November 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCA 855
Year2018
Judgement NumberCACV177/2018
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV177A/2018 RE WARYAM SINGH

CACV 177/2018

[2018] HKCA 855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 177 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 805/2017)

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

RE: WARYAM SINGH Applicant

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

Before: Hon Yuen JA, Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 30 November 2018

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________


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

1. On 24 September 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 11 May 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 5 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The grounds in the notice of motion are apparently related to [14] of our judgment. The applicant said that:

(1) he does not understand English and his friends are not under any duty to ensure that all the grounds for seeking leave for judicial review are communicated accurately;

(2) he did not have language assistance before the leave application; and

(3) the lack of a translated non-refoulement claim form (NCF) is highly unfair.

4. In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application on 19 October 2018. In his written submission, the applicant submitted that he still suffers from the lack of language assistance. No judgment or decision (other than the Notice of Decision) had been read to the applicant through an interpreter and this is unfair to him.

5. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 his notice...

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