NGUYEN VAN TUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 317/2021

[2022] HKCA 1076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 317 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1276 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for “leave to appeal” against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 25 May 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 9 December 2019 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 13 November 2017.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 8 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats the facts of his case, but has failed to point to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.

3.  The Applicant has not filed any submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 8 June 2022.

4.  Under s 22(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 the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of 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.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(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.

7.  This judgment is written in English because the decisions below are written in English. We note that the Applicant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation of 8 June 2022 are written in Chinese. If required, the Applicant may apply to the court for this judgment to be orally interpreted to him by a Vietnamese interpreter.