|
CACV 979/2025, [2026] HKCA 1439
On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 979 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1060 OF 2025)
________________________
| RE:
|
LE THI HONG PHUNG |
Applicant
|
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow and K Yeung JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
9 March 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
18 August 2026 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon K Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 5 February 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA
Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung
on 23 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 March 2025.
2. The applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 4 March
2026 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the
applicant asserts that “It was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled in the [CA Judgment] that I had
no chance of success in reviewing the TCAB’s decision.” She otherwise essentially repeats the grounds of
appeal she set out in the Notice of Appeal dated 6 November 2025.
3. In her written submissions of 9 March 2026, the applicant
only recites certain authorities and makes some generic and non-specific submissions on the general legal
principles applicable to non-refoulement claims. She has failed to deal with the facts, and has failed to
identify any error or question of law.
4. Under s22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal
Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia,
the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 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.
5. No question of great general or public importance involved in
the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion or written submissions. We are unable to see any
such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on
the “otherwise” limb in s22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused
and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Keith Yeung)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, acting in person.
|