Re Nupur Mst and Another

CACV 346/2024, [2026] HKCA 1660

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1517 OF 2023)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

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

1.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 25 June 2025, this Court handed down the judgment ([2025] HKCA 583) dismissing the applicants’ applications to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 August 2024 refusing their applications for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non ‑ refoulement claim. 

2.On 16 July 2025, the applicants filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants also lodged written submissions consisting of 3 pages on 30 July 2025. 

2)  Our view

3.Having considered the applicants’ documents, 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 applicants’ application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicants’ claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

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 notice of motion simply stated that there were errors in the decisions, there was reliance on news not officially recognized, there was no proper investigations, and the applicants’ lives were still in danger.

7.The three‑page written submission by the applicants could be summarized as follows :

(1)  Their case was not determined fairly;

(2)  They could not understand the case and hence it was not easy to appeal;

(3)  There was never any proper legal or language assistance;

(4)  There was breach of procedural fairness; and

(5)  The quick disposal of non-refoulement claimants was unacceptable.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

10.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 16 July 2025 is dismissed.

The 1^st and 2^nd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person