Re Luu Kim Nguyen

CACV 192/2023, [2023] HKCA 1341

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2023

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 859 OF 2019)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 13 October 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 1168) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 13 June 2023 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On the same day, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the 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 application on the basis of the documents in the case.

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

5.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.

6.The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. The grounds in support of the application as stated in the Notice of Motion are substantially the same as the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal (see [13] of our judgment). For the reasons we gave in our judgment, these grounds are unarguable. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.