Re Nguyen Thi Hien

CACV 139/2024, [2025] HKCA 406

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2024

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1385 OF 2022)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 10 January 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 61) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 2 April 2024 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 11 March 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Court, she has not lodged any written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the affirmation, 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 have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  In considering whether to extend the time, the court will have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended.  

6.The applicant’s notice of motion is late by more than a month which is a significant delay.  The applicant has given no explanation for the delay. 

7.As to the merits of the intended application, section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

8.The grounds for the application set out in the Notice of Motion are almost identical to the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal: see [8] of our judgment.  The applicant also asserted in her affirmation that this Court’s decision was unfair without giving her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her country.

9.We are of the view that the grounds put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal. Critically, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, has been identified.  Further, the grounds are no more than general assertions and are unarguable for the reasons we gave in [11] of our judgment.  It is also not open to the applicant to contend that she was not allowed an opportunity to make clarifications in that she had chosen not to put in written submission to support her appeal despite directions made by the Court: see [2] and [3] of our judgment.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.