GINNY BHUPINDER AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 288 /2024, [2026] HKCA 569

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 288 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 98 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicants’ Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 13 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1046). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 July 2024, refusing to grant leave for the applicants to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning their non-refoulement claims. The 1^st applicant also filed a summons for extension of time to appeal on 8 August 2025.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicants shall lodge written submissions on or before 29 August 2025.  It was further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicants have not lodged any written submissions by the prescribed deadline.  Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that they submitted a resettlement application to the Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)  and the application was approved on 7 February 2024.  However, the process of finalising their resettlement is taking longer than expected and they believe they still face an ongoing risk of persecution, torture and/or violation of their absolute and non-derogable rights.  Thus, they wish to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal as they believe there are merits to their case.

Analysis and disposition

4.  Under section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)  (“the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5)  of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance 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.

6.  The applicants were late for about 9 months in applying for leave to appeal.  The delay is substantial.  They explained that they did not make the application earlier because they planned to leave Hong Kong in 2025 as their resettlement application was approved on 7 February 2024.  The applicants did not provide any evidence in support of their explanation. We do not accept that this is a justifiable reason for the substantial delay, so we do not think there is any good ground to grant extension of time for the applicants to file their Notice of Motion. 

7.  In any event, the applicants failed to identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did they 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).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 15 August 2025 and the summons filed on 8 August 2025.