ANNY TETI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 268/2022, [2024] HKCA 503

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 268 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 593 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 29 June 2022, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant the Applicants leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 5 June 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 5 March 2018 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  On 14 March 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicants’ appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 14 March 2024, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants merely state the following: “Challenging The Judgment”. In the 1^st Applicant’s affirmation of the same date filed in support of the application, she states the following: “Late to Appeal Against Judgment”.

4.  The Applicants have failed to lodge written submissions in support of their application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 14 March 2024.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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 Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

7.  The Applicants have delayed substantially in making the present application. No explanation whatsoever has been given for the delay.

8.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicants have not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

9.  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.

10.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

11.  For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.