RE NGUYEN VAN HOAT

CACV 357/2024, [2025] HKCA 353

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2024

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1791 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 February 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 130) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 27 August 2024 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 26 February 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Court, he has not lodged any written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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 are the same as the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal: see [11] of our judgment.

7.  We are of the view that the grounds 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, these grounds are unarguable for the reasons we gave in [14] of our judgment.

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.