RE PHAM BA HUY

CAMP 94/2024, [2025] HKCA 427

On intended appeal from [2024] HKCFI 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 94 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2084 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 4 March 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 181)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 16 February 2024 refusing to extend the time for applying judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 17 March 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 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 in the Notice of Motion stated that: (1)  the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel, violent and will readily kill people; the applicant will be tortured, beaten or killed by his creditor if he returns to Vietnam; (2)  internal relocation is not feasible because the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles, he will be disadvantaged in the labour market and he may not be able to adapt and make a living; (3)  the gangsters will be able to track the applicant as they have a nationwide network and help from the corrupt government officials and police; and (4)  the Director has disregarded the applicant’s human right. 

7.  We are of the view that the grounds put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal:

(1)  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. 

(2)  None of the grounds had been raised in the application for leave to apply for judicial review made to the Judge or in the applications for extension of time to appeal made to the Judge and this Court. It is not permissible for new grounds to be advanced in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal especially when the grounds are fact sensitive.  

(3)  In any event, there is no evidence to support the assertions made by the applicant. 

(4)  Moreover, these new grounds do not engage the reasons given by the Judge for refusing to extend time and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review: see [11] of our judgment.

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.