有關 VU HUU HOI 的事宜
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any issue of general or public importance or any other reason under s22(1)(b) to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal, and he did not demonstrate any arguable error in the impugned findings (including the finding that the torture claim was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 237
- Parties
- Applicant: VU HUU HOI; Respondent: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 2 March 2021
- Case Number
- CACV256/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Torture Allegation, Language Barrier, Extension of Time
- 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
VU HUU HOI
Applicant
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established grounds of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance to justify leave to appeal
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated other exceptional reasons requiring determination by the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b)
- 3 Whether the applicant's language difficulties and alleged threats/foreign warrants justify extension of time or leave
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any issue of general or public importance or any other reason under s22(1)(b) to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal, and he did not demonstrate any arguable error in the impugned findings (including the finding that the torture claim was fabricated).
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed.
Orders
- The applicant's motion dated 9 December 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant's application for extension of time and for leave to seek judicial review is revoked as previously ordered by the Court of Appeal on 17 November 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 256/2020 [2021] HKCA 237 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 民事上訴案件2020 年第256號 (原本案件：高等法院憲法及行政訴訟2018 年第1676號) 申請人 VU HUU HOI 主審法官: 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長關淑馨 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡 判決書日期: 2021年 3 月 2 日 判 決 書 上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判決書： 1) 上訴許可申請 1 本庭 (高等法院上訴法庭副庭長關淑馨和法官張澤祐) 於2020年11月17日頒發判決書撤銷申請人就高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官龍劍雲於2019年12月27日的判決書提出延長上訴期限的申請。龍法官撤銷申請人申請延期提出司法覆核許可申請。 本庭已在2020年11月17日的判決書詳述，本上訴案情、爭議事項和本庭撤銷申請人申請的理由，在此不重複。 申請人現提交動議通知書向本庭申請許可讓他就本庭的判決向終審法院提出上訴。 申請人的動議通知書和他在2020年12月16日呈交的書面陳詞內容一致。他提出的上訴理據可以概括如下： (1) 由於他的英語理解能力不足，所以他延誤上訴申請； (2) 越南的高利貸人士不單止毆打申請人及其家人，更恐嚇會殺害他們; (3) 越南政府機構已經發出通緝令搜捕申請人; 以及 (4) 申請人在《基本法》下享有的權利沒有被考慮。 本庭已在判決書內指出申請人在龍法官席前要求龍法官以英文撰寫判決書。本庭亦指出本案其中一項重要裁決是酷刑聲稱上訴委員會裁定申請人捏造案情。申請人沒有就此明確指出該裁定有明顯錯誤。 2) 法律原則 根據《香港終審法院條例》第484章第22(1)(b)條，上訴法庭只會在以下的情況下給予上訴許可讓申請人繼續向終審法院提出上訴：一是上訴涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性；二是因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決。 3) 本庭意見 1 申請人於提出動議通知書和書面陳詞的內容不構成可上訴至終審法院的上訴理據。申請人未能指出任何具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾重要性的問題。本庭未能從申請人的提出動議通知書和書面陳詞內觀察到任何重大廣泛或關乎公眾重要性的事項。 本庭亦不認為申請人具有任何基礎符合第22(1)(b) 條有關「因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決」的法律要求。 4) 總結 基於上述原因，本庭命令撤銷申請人2020年12 月 9 日的動議通知書。 (關淑馨) (張澤祐) (朱芬齡) 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人：無律師代表，親自行事