Re Le Thi Thanh

CACV 78/2023, [2024] HKCA 39

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 78 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 716 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.By a judgment dated 20 September 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1078) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 10 March 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 468) (“the Decision”), whereby the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 26 September 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.On 11 December 2023, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.

4.Based on the applicant’s Request for Dismissal of Appeal, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.  In any event, as will be further explained below, her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is without any merit.

5.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.

6.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.

7.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant alleges that her life would 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 and that her health is not good as she is not an active person. She further says that the nationwide social network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus make it quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out her new address.  She further alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

8.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

9.In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merits.  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 essentially 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] - [15] of the Judgment.  More importantly, 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.

10.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.

11.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.

12.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person