|
CACV 551/2024, [2025] HKCA 806
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 551 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2116 OF 2019)
-----------------------------------
| RE: |
KANDIAH VASUDEVAN |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
9 September 2025 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 5 June 2025, this court (Chow JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 10 December 2024 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 the 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 filed on 17 June 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, he alleges generally that there is some error in the decisions of the authorities. He also complains that the authorities rejected his claim without proper investigation into the evidence produced and by totally relying on “some web news which is not officially recognised”, and he does not consider his case was determined fairly (which complaint he had already raised in the appeal).
4. The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 30 June 2025. In the written submissions, he essentially repeated his submissions made in the appeal. Attached to the written submissions was a four-page document which appeared to consist of two Identity Cards (“the Identity Cards”) issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for two families respectively to show that they were refugees from Sri Lanka.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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 the documents filed.
6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
7. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. The complaints raised in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions have been dealt with at paragraphs 11 and 12 of our judgment dated 5 June 2025, and the mere repetition of these complaints, mainly directed at the Board, will not render any assistance to this application.
8. The Identity Cards are new evidence, and the applicant has not made any application for leave to adduce new evidence for the purpose of this application. In any event, to justify the admission of new evidence, the applicant has to satisfy the three conditions established in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489[2] (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(3)). On the face of the Identity Cards, there is no indication as to the dates on which they were issued. Parts of the information relating to the two families on the Identity Cards was either written in a foreign language or illegible. The applicant has not provided any translation of the content of the Identity Cards to this court, nor has he provided any explanation as to why he was not able to produce them earlier in the proceedings or made any submissions as to how they are relevant to this application. We do not consider that the Identity Cards which the applicant seeks to rely upon as documentary evidence in support has any bearing on the merits of this application. We therefore do not consider that the applicant has shown that the second Ladd v Marshall condition is satisfied in relation to the Identity Cards.
9. Having reached the view that the second Ladd v Marshall condition is not satisfied, it is not necessary to consider the first or third Ladd v Marshall conditions. Finally, we do not consider there are any, or any sufficient, exceptional circumstances to justify exercising our residual discretion to admit the Identity Cards as new evidence notwithstanding the non-satisfaction of the Ladd v Marshall conditions for the purpose of this application.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 17 June 2025 is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Yvonne Cheng)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
[1] See [2025] HKCA 500
[2] The three conditions are: (1) it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use in the court below; (2) the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive; and (3) the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.
|