向終審法院上訴的許可準則？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：MOSHSIN ALI - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、麥偉德上訴法官、潘兆初上訴法官 - 判決日期：2018年11月30日 ### 案情摘要 申請人曾向上訴法庭申請許可，就副法官拒絕延長其申請司法覆核許可的時間的決定提出上訴，但被拒絕。申請人現根據《終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條，向上訴法庭申請許可，以就上訴法庭拒絕其上訴許可的決定，向終審法院提出上訴。申請人提交了動議通知書、誓章及書面陳詞，列出多項理由，包括指上訴法庭的判決不公平不合理、法官未能查明孟加拉的危險實況、未能查明當值律師服務的公信力不足等。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人提出的上訴理由是否符合《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance) 第22(1)(b)條所訂明的上訴許可準則。具體而言，爭議點包括申請人提出的理由是否涉及具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，或是否存在其他充分理由授予上訴許可。上訴法庭需要判斷其拒絕延長申請司法覆核許可時間的決定是否最終決定，以及申請人是否有權利再向上訴法庭申請上訴許可。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第14AB條，指出其拒絕授予上訴許可的決定是最終決定。法庭引用了終審法院在 Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 240 一案中的裁決，該案確認了《區域法院條例》中類似條文的合憲性。法庭審閱了申請人提出的所有理由，認為這些理由均屬針對本案特定事實，不涉及具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，亦無其他理由支持授予上訴許可。因此，申請人未能符合《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條所訂明的法定準則。 ### 引用案例與條文 Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 240：終審法院裁定《區域法院條例》中關於上訴法庭拒絕上訴許可的決定為最終決定的條文是合憲的。本案引用此案例以支持《高等法院條例》第14AB條的最終性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人於2018年8月31日提交的動議通知書，即拒絕授予申請人向終審法院提出上訴的許可。申請人提出的所有上訴理由均不獲接納。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，根據《高等法院條例》第14AB條，上訴法庭拒絕授予上訴許可的決定是最終的，不得再向上訴法庭申請許可上訴至終審法院。申請人若要獲得向終審法院上訴的許可，必須證明其上訴涉及具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，或存在其他充分理由，而本案的理由均不符合這些準則。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: MOSHSIN ALI - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, McWalters JA and Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 30 November 2018 ### Factual Background The applicant previously sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against the deputy judge's decision refusing an extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review, which was denied. The applicant now seeks leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision refusing his leave to appeal, pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The applicant submitted a notice of motion, affirmation, and written submissions, listing various grounds, including that the Court of Appeal's judgment was unfair and unreasonable, that the judges failed to ascertain the reality of the dangerous situation in Bangladesh, and that they failed to ascertain the lack of credibility of the duty lawyers service. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case is whether the applicant's grounds of appeal meet the criteria for leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. Specifically, the dispute concerns whether the applicant's grounds involve questions of great general or public importance, or if there are other sufficient reasons to grant leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if its decision to refuse an extension of time for applying for judicial review leave was final, and if the applicant had the right to seek further leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that its decision to refuse leave to appeal was final, pursuant to section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance. The court cited the Court of Final Appeal's ruling in Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 240, which affirmed the constitutional validity of a similar provision in the District Court Ordinance. The court reviewed all the grounds raised by the applicant and found that they were case-specific, did not involve questions of great general or public importance, and there were no other reasons to grant leave to appeal. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet the statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 240: The Court of Final Appeal ruled that a similar provision in the District Court Ordinance, making the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse leave to appeal final, was constitutionally valid. This case was cited to support the finality of section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion dated 31 August 2018, thereby refusing to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. All grounds of appeal raised by the applicant were rejected. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that, under section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance, a decision by the Court of Appeal to refuse leave to appeal is final and cannot be further appealed to the Court of Final Appeal by seeking leave from the Court of Appeal. For an applicant to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, they must demonstrate that their appeal involves a question of great general or public importance, or that there is some other sufficient reason, which the grounds in this case did not meet. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.