刘佩宝 對 腾讯控股有限公司

刘佩宝 對 腾讯控股有限公司

Permission to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal involved issues of wide or public importance or any other exceptional reasons under s22; the appellant's submissions were unsupported by evidence or legal authority and therefore did not meet the threshold for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCA 582
Parties
Appellant: LIU, PEIBAO; Respondent: TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Case Number
CACV213/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; appellant's filed motion struck out; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdictional Challenge, Disclosure Obligations, Alleged Suppression of Speech, Control of We Chat, Perjury Allegations, Strike Out Application
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Freedom of Expression Company Law Jurisdiction Evidence Leave to Appeal Jurisdictional Challenge Disclosure Obligations +4 more

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIU, PEIBAO

Appellant

TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant demonstrated that the proposed appeal raises issues of wide importance or public significance under s22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there are other exceptional or extremely unusual reasons to justify certification to the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Allegations that the respondent unlawfully restricted freedom of expression and controls the WeChat service

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal involved issues of wide or public importance or any other exceptional reasons under s22; the appellant's submissions were unsupported by evidence or legal authority and therefore did not meet the threshold for certification to the Court of Final Appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; appellant's filed motion struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Applicant's filed motion for permission struck out
  • No order as to costs