DOAN VAN THAI 對 CAO THI HUONG
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was refused because, notwithstanding a one-day delay, the applicants failed to advance any substantive grounds of appeal or show that the appeal raised matters of great and general importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); consequently there was no basis to exercise the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 456
- Parties
- First Applicant: DOAN VAN THAI; Second Applicant: CAO THI HUONG; Respondent: Director of Immigration; Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 25 March 2022
- Case Number
- CAMP185/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Permission/leave Application — Appeal From Court of Appeal Refusal to Grant Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Application for permission to bring an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the motion filed 23 December 2021 dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Public Importance Threshold
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
DOAN VAN THAI
First Applicant
CAO THI HUONG
Second Applicant
Director of Immigration
Respondent
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Permission/leave Application — Appeal From Court of Appeal Refusal to Grant Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant permission for a one-day-late application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal raises issues of 'great and general importance' under Cap.484 s22(1)(b)
- 3 Whether the applicants demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal or other reasons to justify the extension
Ratio Decidendi
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was refused because, notwithstanding a one-day delay, the applicants failed to advance any substantive grounds of appeal or show that the appeal raised matters of great and general importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); consequently there was no basis to exercise the court's discretion to permit an out-of-time appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to bring an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the motion filed 23 December 2021 dismissed.
Orders
- Refuse permission for the applicants to file an out-of-time appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
- Disallow and revoke the applicants' motion filed on 23 December 2021 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CAMP 185/2021 [2022] HKCA 456 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 雜項案件編號2021年第185號 (擬上訴的原本案件：憲法及行政訴訟案件2018年第1690號) __________________ 第一申請人 DOAN VAN THAI 第二申請人 CAO THI HUONG __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官區慶祥 判案書日期： 2022年3月25日 判 案 書 上訴法庭法官區慶祥頒發上訴法庭判案書： 上訴法庭 (上訴法庭法官張澤祐及上訴法庭法官區慶祥) 於2021年11月24日作出判決 ([2021] HKCA 1741)，駁回申請人的逾期上訴許可申請。兩名申請人就本庭的判決於2021年12月23日存檔《提出動議通知書》及非宗教式誓詞，申請逾期上訴許可至終審法院。 兩名申請人免遣返聲請的詳情，入境事務處處長及酷刑聲請上訴委員會拒絕其免遣返聲請及駁回其上訴的決定，以及高等法院暫委法官龍劍雲拒絕給予申請人提出司法覆核許可及逾期上訴許可的判決，在本庭的判案書已有述及，本庭在此不再重複。 兩名申請人並沒有遵從民事上訴案司法常務官於2021年12月23日作出的書面指示，呈交任何書面陳詞。本庭審閱了相關文件，認為本申請適宜以書面形式處理，毋需舉行聆訊。 分析及裁決 根據香港法例第484章《香港終審法院條例》第24條，申請人須於擬上訴判決日期28天內向上訴法庭提出上訴許可。就本案而言，兩名申請人應於2021年12月22日或之前向上訴法庭申請上訴許可至終審法院。雖然申請人只是略微延誤一天，但法庭仍需考慮其上訴得直的機會，來決定是否給予逾期上訴許可。 《香港終審法院條例》第 22(1)(b) 條規定，兩名申請人須符合以下情況，才可向終審法院提出上訴： 「如該上訴是就上訴法庭就任何民事訟案或事項所作的判決而提出的，不論是最終判決或非正審判決，而上訴法庭或終審法院(視屬何情況而定)認為上訴所涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決，則上訴法庭或終審法院須酌情決定終審法院是否受理該上訴。」 本庭認為，兩名申請人擬提出的上訴沒有任何成功機會。申請人在其《提出動議通知書》及非宗教式誓詞中，只是重申他們在越南遇到的問題，及提出免遣返保護聲請的原因，但他們並沒有提出任何實質的上訴理由，亦沒有指出上訴法庭駁回其逾期上訴許可申請有任何錯誤之處。他們亦未能顯示，擬提出的上訴涉及的問題，具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，也沒有其他理由以致應交由終審法院裁決。 基於上述理由，本庭拒絕給予兩名申請人許可逾期上訴至終審法院，並撤銷申請人於2021年12月23日存檔的《提出動議通知書》。 (張澤祐) (區慶祥) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 第一及第二申請人：無律師代表，親自行事