Re Singh Yuvrajdeep and Others

CACV 178/2024, [2026] HKCA 473

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 315 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 26 February 2025, this Court (Cheung and Chow JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Anthony To given on 25 April 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The 3^rd applicant on behalf of all other applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 7 March 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  The children’s lives are at risk if they return.  The children were all born in Hong Kong.  The Philippines authority will not protect them;

2)  Failure to consider BOR 2 and 3 risks.

4.The applicants’ written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicants’ lives are still in danger[1];

2)  The decision makers failed to take into account relevant matters and took into account irrelevant matters :

(1)  The Judges did not follow high standards of fairness[2]; and

(2)  It is not safe to relocate in home country.  The applicants’ claims are true story[3];

3)  The decision maker did not observe her fear properly[4]; and

4)  The applicants’ allegations are real, the enemies will trace them and harm them[5].

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicants.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicants. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 7 March 2025 is dismissed.

The 3^rd Applicant, acting in person for and on behalf of herself and the other applicants.