RE NOK TARNI

CACV 1198/2025, [2026] HKCA 1721

On Appeal from [2026] HKCA 139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1198 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1138 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 23 February 2026, this Court handed down judgment ([2026] HKCA 139) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 10 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5807) whereby the Judge refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 February 2026, the applicant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the notice of motion may be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged her written submissions on 10 March 2026. Having considered the notice and the written submissions, we consider that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated:

“I want inform to court of Final Appeal. There were some error in Law Maker Authorities. They were Totally Relied on same web news which officially not Recognized. I do not think my case determined fairly.”

5.  In her written submissions, the applicant stated her disagreement with the decision of the Director and the Board in that she thinks her case has not been determined fairly. She complained that she had no proper legal and language assistance. The (putative) respondent was allegedly in breach of procedural fairness and duty to properly investigate her case. The decision was said to be unreasonable or irrational or result of procedural error and discrimination.

Discussion

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.  The applicant failed to set out any actual ground for her intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in the notice of motion. She did not particularise any mistake in the Judgment in the notice and her submissions. As explained in the Judgment, this Court proceeded to consider her appeal on paper only upon her failure to lodge any skeleton argument. The submissions now made, had they been made before this Court then, would have been, and still are, bare assertions without particulars and supporting evidence.

8.  The applicant also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Nor is there basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.