|
CACV 243/2025, [2025] HKCA 1100
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 243 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 332 OF 2020)
________________________
| RE: |
DAO THI THANH HOA |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
18 December 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 August 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 4 July 2025 (“the Judgment”) ([2025] HKCA 600). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 April 2025, by which the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1494).
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
3. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.
4. In her Notice of Motion, the applicant alleges that her life will be in danger if she returned to Vietnam and that creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. She also alleges that internal relocation is not feasible because there will be many difficulties and obstacles that she will have to face in the new location. She further contends that the nationwide social network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus make it quite possible for those creditors and gangsters to find out his new address. She further alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various legislations but failed to particularise her complaint.
5. In her supporting affirmation filed on 4 August 2025, the applicant also claims that the Leave Decision was reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and situation in her country. She further asserts that there is “a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review”. Yet, no detail was given as to the said “good ground of appeal”.
6. Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.
7. In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit. Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Her allegations are also a mere regurgitation of those submissions she had previously made before this court in her appeal, which we had already considered and rejected: see [8] - [14] of the Judgment. She did not identify any specific error in the Judgment. It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014) at [2] and [3]. Clearly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.
8. Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.
9. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
10. For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 4 August 2025 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|