葉黎穩 對 香港政府

葉黎穩 對 香港政府

The applicant's proposed appeal did not raise any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, merely repeated previously rejected, unsupported personal assertions, failed to identify specific statutory or Basic Law grounds, and had no real prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCA 110
Parties
Applicant: 葉黎穩; Proposed Respondent: 香港政府; Interested Party: 李家超; Interested Party: 林定國
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Case Number
CAMP333/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Decision on Leave Application at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; revised motion dismissed; costs to respondents and interested parties awarded.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Public Health Regulation, Costs
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Public Health Regulation Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

葉黎穩

Applicant

香港政府

Proposed Respondent

李家超

Interested Party

林定國

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Decision on Leave Application at Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises issues of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or other reason to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is impermissibly repeating arguments already considered and rejected

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proposed appeal did not raise any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, merely repeated previously rejected, unsupported personal assertions, failed to identify specific statutory or Basic Law grounds, and had no real prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the motion dismissed, with costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; revised motion dismissed; costs to respondents and interested parties awarded.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • Revised notice of motion dismissed