Re Nguyen Thi Lan

CAMP 205/2024, [2025] HKCA 405

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 2632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 205 OF 2024

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1217 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 4 March 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 186) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 31 October 2023 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 10 March 2025, 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 Court, she has not lodged any 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 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 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 grounds for the application set out in the Notice of Motion are identical to the Statement that the applicant put in to support her appeal1: see [17] of our judgment.  These grounds 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 [18] of our judgment.  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 are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.