RE NGUYEN THANH DAI

CAMP 107/2025, [2025] HKCA 1111

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 2404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 107 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1817 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 30 July 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 679) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 23 September 2024 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 19 September 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also lodged a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submission, 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.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.

6.  The grounds for the application set out in the Notice of Motion and the accompanying affirmation are the same as the arguments in the Statement lodged together with the summons applying for extension of time and the affirmation in support of the summons: see [18] and [19] of our judgment.  The written submission outlines the factual basis and the procedural history of the applicant’s claim and quotes extensively from decisions on the principles of high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness.  It submits that the decision will finally dispose of the applicant’s claim, the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility.   

7.  We are of the view that the grounds and submissions put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal. Critically, all the grounds of application relate solely to the circumstances and facts of the applicant’s claim.  No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, has been identified.  Further, the grounds are unarguable for the reasons we gave in [20] of our judgment.  The applicant has also not explained how the legal propositions set out in the written submission relate to his application.  

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.