Re Pham Van Quang

CAMP 492/2022, [2023] HKCA 915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 492 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2336 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 24 May 2023, this Court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 671)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend the time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang (“the Judge”)  given on 2 March 2021 which refused to extend the time for applying for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.On 12 June 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.The applicant explained in the affidavit that she lives in a sub-divided unit, the key to the letter box is kept by the landlord who will only pick up and distribute the letters at his convenience, and she only received the judgment on 24 March 2023.  In our view, the reason given for the delay is not implausible.  Further, the delay of ten days, though not insignificant, is not substantial.  In the circumstances, we will focus on the merits of the intended appeal, which is the most important consideration. 

6.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

7.The grounds in support of the application as set out in the notice of motion are the same as [4] to [8] of the Statement lodged in support of the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal: see [17] of our judgment.  

8.We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of motion do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all concern the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances, and do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  Further, for the reasons given in [18] of our judgment, the points made in it are unarguable.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.