Re Ubongen Leanne Palma and Another

CAMP 376/2023, [2026] HKCA 1748

On intended appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 376 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 300 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 22 August 2024, this court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 791) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 29 September 2023 refusing their application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 25 June 2026, the 1^st applicant filed a Notice of Motion on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to support the application.  

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, 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.Section 24(2) of the 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.  Under section 24(5), the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

5.The applicants’ application is late by more than one year and eleven months, which is very serious delay.  The applicants have not provided any explanation for the delay.  

6.We turn next to consider the merits of the application.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

7.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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 Notice of Motion stated that the Court decision has disregarded the dangerous situation of the applicants.

9.The written submission is almost identical to the one lodged in support of the renewed application for extension of time to appeal, save that the applicants additionally stated in the present submission that while the issue might seem private, it was because of the failure of the system to protect individuals that the 1^st applicant could not return to the country.  

10.We are of the view that what was 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 Ordinance.  Further, for the reasons given in [26] to [30] of our judgment, the matters raised in the written submission are unarguable. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.As the intended appeal has no merits, it will be futile to extend the time for the appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The 1^st and 2^nd applicants, unrepresented, acted in person