|
CACV 16/2025, [2025] HKCA 1102
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 16 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2199 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
LE VAN TUAN |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
18 December 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 July 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 4 July 2025 (“the Judgment”) ([2025] HKCA 602). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 31 December 2024, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 3262).
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this 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 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant cited various general propositions and legal authorities on the high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness. However, the applicant failed to specify how those legal principles are relevant to his case.
5. Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of his application.
6. In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit. His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. More importantly, all his assertions are directed at the Board’s Decision and he fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment. His submissions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.
7. Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.
8. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 10 July 2025 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|