Re Balane Marcela Tatson

CACV 187/2025, [2026] HKCA 1550

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 187 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3687 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 18 May 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 12 March 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 374).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 27 March 2025, by which the Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1166).

2.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.

3.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.

4.Pursuant to section 24(2) of the HKCFAO, an appellant has 28 days from the date of the Judgment to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the present case, the deadline for the applicant to seek leave to appeal against the Judgment fell on 9 April 2026.  Accordingly, the applicant was over a month late in taking out her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.As the applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal within time, the Court has a discretion to extend time under section 24(5) of the HKCFAO only if good and sufficient grounds are shown by the applicant: see Re Imran Muhammad [2021] HKCA 482 at [9] and the authorities cited therein.  In deciding whether there are such good grounds, the Court is entitled to take into account (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the chances of the appeal succeeding if an extension of time is granted; and (d) the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted: Begum Jahanara v Ian Candy, Esq & Another [2021] HKCA 83 at [4] and the authorities cited therein.

6.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I am pleading to the court to give me chance to appeal against the Judgment dated on 12 March 2026 by Hon Au and Anthony Chan JJA in court.  At Court of Final Appeal.  The Judgment reached unreasonable.” (sic)

7.In her supporting affirmation filed on 18 May 2026, the applicant further asserted:

“I am late to appeal because I did not recive letter.  I requesting extension of time I want to appeal.” (sic)

8.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of her present application.

9.At the outset, the applicant’s delay is inordinate.  She furnished no evidence to support her bare allegations regarding her delay.  The court record shows that the Judgment and the court order were sent to the applicant by post on 12 March 2026 to her last known address, which was the same address as provided in her Notice of Motion.  The Judgment and the court order are not returned undelivered by the post office.  In the premises, we do not accept her purported explanation for the delay.

10.In any event, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars.  Her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

11.Further, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

12.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.

13.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person