有關 VU QUOC HUNG 的事宜
The court refused permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other reasons under s.22(1)(b), failed to provide adequate explanation for delay, and failed to show any substantive prospect of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCA 132
- Parties
- Applicant: VU QUOC HUNG; Respondent: Director of Immigration; Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 8 February 2023
- Case Number
- CAMP441/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Immigration (application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal After Refusal of Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave to Judicially Review
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion filed 7 December 2022 set aside
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Permission to Appeal
- 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 QUOC HUNG
Applicant
Director of Immigration
Respondent
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Immigration (application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal After Refusal of Extension of Time and Refusal of Leave to Judicially Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant satisfied s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484) by showing the appeal raised issues of general/public importance or other reasons warranting determination by the CFA
- 2 Whether the applicant gave a sufficient explanation for delay in seeking extension of time to appeal
- 3 Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify granting permission or extension
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other reasons under s.22(1)(b), failed to provide adequate explanation for delay, and failed to show any substantive prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and the Notice of Motion dated 7 December 2022 was set aside.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion filed 7 December 2022 set aside
Orders
- Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused pursuant to s.22(1)(b) Cap.484
- The Notice of Motion filed on 7 December 2022 is set aside/dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CAMP 441/2022 [2023] HKCA 132 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 案件編號：雜項案件2022年第441號 (擬上訴的原本案件編號：HCAL 1969/2018) 申請人 VU QUOC HUNG 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡 高等法院上訴法庭法官潘敏琦 判決書日期： 2023年2月8日 判 決 書 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡頒發上訴法庭判決書: 1. 本庭在2022年11月18日頒發上訴法庭判決書，駁回申請人延展上訴期限的申請。申請人擬提的上訴是針對高等法院暫委法官陳忠基2021年12月31日拒絕他提出延展司法覆核申請的時間， 及撤銷他的司法覆核許可申請的決定。 2. 申請人在2022年12月7日存檔《提出動議通知書》連同一份非宗教式誓詞，就上訴法庭的判決，申請許可上訴至終審法院。申請人未有按照民事上訴司法常務官的指示，提交支持申請的書面陳詞。 3. 本庭審閱了相關文件，認為適宜根據《實務指示》2.1，以書面方式處理這申請，毋需舉行口頭聆訊。 4. 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他的免遣返聲請及駁回他的上訴的決定，以及陳法官拒絕給予提出司法覆核許可的判決，在本庭的判案書已有述及，在此不重複。 5. 香港法例第484章《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b) 條規定，申請人須符合以下情況，才可向終審法院上訴： 「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。」 6. 申請人在《提出動議通知書》，重申他在越南遇到的問題，及提出免遣返保護聲請的原因，即他因為生意周轉不靈，無力償還欠債，遭債主和手下迫害，為逃避債主的脅迫及傷害而來香港避難。 7. 申請人的誓詞表示因為疫情，他收到法庭信件，打開後才知道是判決，但已超過了上訴期限。申請人沒有說明他指的是陳法官的判決還是本庭的判案書。 如果是前者，申請人在向陳法官及本庭申請延展上訴時限時並沒有解釋延誤的原因，但本庭仍進一步考慮了他擬提的上訴的成功機會。而如果是後者，申請人本次申請沒有逾期。申請人的誓詞因此對本申請沒有幫助。 9. 申請人沒有提出任何實質的上訴理由，亦沒有指出本庭駁回他延展上訴期限的申請有任何錯誤之處。他亦未能顯示，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。申請人的申請因此不符合第22(1)(b) 條的規定。 10. 基於上述理由，本庭拒絕給予申請人上訴至終審法院的許可，撤銷他2022年12月7日存檔的《提出動議通知書》。 (朱芬齡) 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 (潘敏琦) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人：無律師代表，親自行事