RE UBONGEN LEANNE PALMA AND ANOTHER

CAMP 377/2023, [2026] HKCA 500

On an intended appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 377 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 818 OF 2022)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 22 August 2024, this court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 791) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 29 September 2023 refusing their application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 5 February 2026, the 1^st applicant, on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant, filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also lodged a written submission on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant.      

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, 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 applicants’ claims have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.  Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  In considering whether to extend the time, we will have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended. 

6.  The applicants’ Notice of Motion is late by more than 17 months, which is very serious delay.  No explanation has been provided for the long delay.  

7.  We turn next to consider whether there is proper basis for this Court to give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

8.  In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant stated that she rejected the court’s decision and would like to review it.  Other than stating that the courts had disregarded her dangerous situation, no ground in support of the application was given by the applicants.

9.  The written submission stated that: (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) was insensitive to the applicants’ case and the situation in the Philippines; (2) the applicants would be in grave danger if they return to the Philippines and the Board was misguided to believe that rule of law was actually practised in the Philippines; (3) the Board’s knowledge, which was derived from country of origin information and other general reports, was inadequate to enable it to understand the local context; and (4) the court, while accepted that there was possibility of harm to the applicants, believed that they could relocate within the Philippines without appreciating that the applicants would have to live like fugitives.     

10.  We are of the view that what was put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Further, the applicants’ arguments do not engage our reasons for refusing to extend the time for them to appeal (see our judgment at [25] to [19] and [31].  Our judgment has not discussed the issue of internal relocation options, hence the applicants’ submissions in this regard are completely misplaced. 

11.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  Having regard to the substantial delay and the lack of merits, it would be futile to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.