Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court of final appeal

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

香港特別行政區訴袁慧菁

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA371/2024

The application for a s32 certificate is refused because the matters advanced are factual complaints and criticisms of trial process and witness credibility already considered and rejected on appeal; they do not raise any point of law of general or public importance under s32(2), and therefore the statutory threshold for a certificate is not met; no costs order is made against the applicant due to her unrepresented status, lack of legal understanding and personal circumstances.
25 Jan 2024

RE TOURAY NFAMARA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV191/2023

The Court applied the statutory threshold in s 22(1)(b) Cap 484, finding that whether leave should be granted hinges on whether the question is of great general or public importance, and determined that the application could be disposed of on paper.
16 Nov 2023

陳雲及另一人對振威金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1271
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV475/2021

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, failed to show any issue of significant general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and did not establish any other exceptional reason; the application was plainly without reasonable grounds and the applicant was ordered to pay proportionate costs of HK$20,000.
9 Sept 2022

RE DEEPAK KUMAR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1322
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP76/2022

Leave to appeal under s22(1)(b) was refused because the Notice of Motion did not raise any question of great general or public importance and the applicant's assertions did not constitute viable grounds of appeal; no basis existed under the 'or otherwise' limb, therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and the motion was dismissed.
21 Sept 2021

RE HUSSAIN MUSTANSAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1369
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV631/2020

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and showed no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; the applicant also failed to comply with directions to file written submissions, justifying refusal of leave.
11 Aug 2021

RE NIKMATURODIYAH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1163
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP56/2021

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor any other basis under s.22(1)(b); she filed no grounds or written submissions as directed, therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and leave to appeal was refused.
30 Jul 2021

RE RAHMAN MOJIBUR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1111
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV497/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds or lodge written submissions and there was no question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) to justify grant of leave.
22 Jun 2021

RE SUPRIATIK

Citation

[2021] HKCA 907
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV548/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; consequently the notice of motion was dismissed.
24 May 2021

RE OTAD JENNY BERGONIO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 715
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV409/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants' notice of motion merely repeated grounds already rejected on the substantive appeal, failed to engage with the reasons given by this Court, and did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
11 Jan 2021

RE HARPREET SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 20
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV144/2020

Leave to appeal under s.22(1)(b) was refused because the applicant did not identify any arguable error or issue of great general or public importance and failed to engage with the reasons of the lower courts, so the statutory threshold for leave was not satisfied.