RE NGUYEN DUC HAO

CACV 269/2024, [2026] HKCA 474

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1237 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 26 February 2025, this Court (Cheung and Chow JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 30 November 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 7 March 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  The Court of Appeal’s judgment was unsatisfactory;

2)  The gangsters and creditors in Vietnam are different to those in Hong Kong as they are cruel and violent;

3)  Internal relocation is not feasible;

4)  Nationwide social network of gangsters will make it quite possible for them to find the applicant’s new residence;

5)  The applicant’s human rights were not considered under the law; and

6)  The applicant seeks justice and asylum in Hong Kong.

4.  Despite the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 7 March 2025, the applicant failed to lodge his written submission by the stipulated deadline.  The applicant is deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submission.  This Court will consider this application on the available documents.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.    The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant.

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 7 March 2025 is dismissed.