TO THI CHAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 135 /2024, [2026] HKCA 562

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 135 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NOS 1799 OF 2019 AND 1740 OF 2020

(CONSOLIDATED))

________________________

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1799 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

AND

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1740 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 3 April 2024)

________________________

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 to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 12 June 2025 ([2025] HKCA 546).

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicants will be deemed to have abandoned their rights to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by the Court of Appeal based on the available materials unless the parties lodge their written submissions on or before 16 October 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.  The applicants stated the following grounds of appeal in their Notice of Motion:

(1)  If the applicants return to Vietnam, their life would be seriously threatened or they would probably be killed because the gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong, most of them are cruel and violent.  They disregard the law and are willing to kill people.

(2)  It is completely unfeasible for them to change to live in another location as they would face many difficulties and obstacles.

(3)  With the nationwide social network of the gangsters and their clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police, it is quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out the applicants’ new residence.

(4)  The Immigration Department did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Analysis and Disposition

4.  We have been informed that the scope of the legal aid certificate of the 3^rd applicant (who is a minor)  does not include her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 3^rd applicant is not legally represented in this application and her mother (the 1^st applicant herein)  filed the present application on her behalf.  We exercise our discretion under Order 2 rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court to treat the non-compliance with Order 80, Rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 3^rd applicant’s application a nullity.

5.  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.

6.  The grounds in the present application have already been dealt with in our decision on 12 June 2025.  The applicants have not identified 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).

7.  Therefore, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 2 July 2025.