RE HOSSAIN BELAYET
- Citation
- [2020] HKCA 798
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 October 2020
- Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Determination on Papers Following Motion; Notice of Motion Dismissed
- Case number
- CAMP7/2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 October 2020
- Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Determination on Papers Following Motion; Notice of Motion Dismissed
- Case number
- CAMP7/2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for leave failed because the alleged errors related only to the applicant's individual circumstances and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); a new complaint about country of origin information was impermissible and lacked particulars; therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and extending time would be futile.
Court disposition
Notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; no extension of time granted.
Orders
- Notice of motion dismissed
- No extension of time for filing granted
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
02
Material facts
Parties
HOSSAIN BELAYET
ApplicantThe Court of Appeal
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Delay in Filing (approximate): 21
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Determination on Papers Following Motion; Notice of Motion Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether time for filing notice of motion should be extended under s24(5) of Cap.484
- 02
Whether the application raises a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b)
- 03
Whether new arguments may be raised at leave stage
- 04
Whether allegations without particulars suffice to grant leave
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time, explaining lack of awareness of the 28‑day rule and asserting errors of law, reliance on unfavorable country of origin information, biased and unreasonable decision and risk to his life.
- Respondent
- Court submitted that the statutory threshold for leave under section 22(1)(b) was not met because the points related only to the applicant's personal circumstances and did not raise questions of general or public importance; a new complaint about country of origin information was impermissible at this stage and lacked particulars; accordingly extension of time would be futile.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 s22(1)(b)
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal requires the question to be of great general or public importance or otherwise warranting CFA consideration under s22(1)(b).
- 02
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 s24(2) and s24(5)
Applications for leave to appeal to the CFA must be filed within 28 days; the Court of Appeal may extend time under s24(5).
- 03
Established procedural principle applied by the Court of Appeal (judgment)
New arguments cannot be raised for the first time in an application for leave to appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for leave failed because the alleged errors related only to the applicant's individual circumstances and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); a new complaint about country of origin information was impermissible and lacked particulars; therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and extending time would be futile.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's short delay of about three weeks and his status as a litigant in person made his explanation acceptable but did not affect the merits analysis
- Applications for leave to the Court of Final Appeal are ordinarily determined on paper without oral hearing
Court disposition
Notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; no extension of time granted.
- Notice of motion dismissed
- No extension of time for filing granted
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 12 October 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal
Judgment· 12 October 2020
CAMP 7/2020 [2020] HKCA 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2020 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 738 of 2018)
RE
HOSSAIN BELAYET Applicant ______ Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court Date of Judgment: 12 October 2020 ____
JUDGMENT ____ Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court: On 8 June 2020, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 23 September 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review. On 28 July 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite the direction given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in a written submission to support his application. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case. Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Under section 24(5), the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion. The applicant’s notice of motion is late by about three weeks, which is not a very serious
delay. The applicant explained in his affirmation that he was not aware of the rule regarding the time limit for making the application. Having regard to the fact that the applicant is a litigant in person, we are prepared to accept his explanation. We turn next to consider the merits of the application. The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision. The notice of motion stated the following points: (1) There is some error in law in the decision. (2) Decision maker just relied on COL information and facts which were in favour of rejecting the applicant’s claim, when life in real situation is differently. (3) The officer and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. (4) The Decision displayed a biased and formulaic approach. It did not fairly assess the danger to the applicant’s life and was clearly unreasonable. We are of the view that these points do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. They relate only to the
circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, the complaint about the use of country of origin information is a new point, which was not argued in the application to this court for leave to appeal out of time. It is not permissible to raise a new argument in an application for leave to appeal. The complaint is, in any event, not supported by particulars. As to the other points, they are also general assertions with no supporting particulars. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it is futile to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion. Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion. (Peter Cheung) (Carlye Chu) (Aarif Barma) Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.