Re Cu Van Duc

CAMP 7/2024, [2024] HKCA 921

On intended appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1620 of 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 30 July 2024, this Court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 641) refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 26 April 2023 which dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 8 August 2024, 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 a 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.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 notice of motion set out the following grounds in support of the application:

(1)  The applicant will be under serious threat or will probably die if he were to return to Vietnam because the creditor and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel, violent, have no regard for the law and will readily kill people.

(2)  Internal relocation is not feasible as the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles, and there is guarantee he can adapt and find a job to support himself.

(3)  The applicant’s creditor and the gangsters will be able to locate the applicant due to the nationwide network of the gangsters and their connections with corrupt officials in the government and the police.

(4)  The applicant’s human rights under the Basic Law and international conventions have not been considered.   

7.The grounds set out in the notice of motion do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  Further, the grounds in the notice of motion bear no relevance to the reasons we gave for refusing to extend the time for appeal: see [17] to [19] of our judgment. They are not reasonably arguable.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

plicant, unrepresented, acted in person.