|
CACV 240/2023, [2025] HKCA 382
On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 1830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1798 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
NGUYEN THI TUOI |
1st Applicant
|
|
NGUYEN THI THUY THUONG
|
2nd Applicant |
|
NGUYEN VIET ANH |
3rd Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Decision: |
30 April 2025 |
________________________
DECISION
________________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :
I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
1. On 9 August 2024, this Court (Cheung and G Lam JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the 1st and 3rd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 20 July 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to the 1st and 3rd applicants to apply for judicial review[1].
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 1st and 3rd applicants now apply, by notice of motion filed on 14 August 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The 1st and 3rd applicants stated in their notice of motion the following in summary :
1) It was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that they had no chance of success;
2) They will be tortured or even killed if they return to Vietnam because the police there are different from those in Hong Kong;
3) Relocation was not feasible, as they will face difficulties and there is no guarantee that they will adapt;
4) Vietnam is a one party government, no matter where they go they will be chased and arrested by the police;
5) The Immigration Department did not consider their human rights under the Basic Law; and
6) They seek justice and ask for asylum in Hong Kong.
4. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 14 August 2024, the applicants have failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Under [7] of those directions, the applicants have abandoned their right to rely on written submissions. The Court will deal with this application on the available materials.
II. Our view
5. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘the 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 1st and 3rd applicants in their notice of motion are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the 1st and 3rd applicants. 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 1st and 3rd applicants have 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 1st and 3rd applicants.
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 14 August 2024 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] The 2nd applicant withdrew her application before the Judge at first instance; The 3rd applicant relies upon the facts of the 1st applicant; see Form CALL-1 at [2], [13], [17], [23].
|