Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Leave to appeal to final court

  • 26 Sept 2025

    AR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 614
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV60/2024

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific error in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b), relied on general and unsupported assertions, and failed to properly explain or justify fresh documents which were the same as materials previously considered; therefore there was no basis to grant leave either under the public-importance limb or the otherwise limb.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture claims
    • Procedural fairness in administrative decision-making
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness

  • 30 Aug 2024

    XIAO LONG 對 LAM TAK YUEN

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 800
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV325/2022

    The respondent's leave application was so brief and presented no issue of general or public importance that little work was required of the applicant; accordingly the applicant's claimed costs of HK$86,730 were excessive and the Court assessed a reasonable costs award at HK$30,000 to be paid by the respondent to the applicant.

    • Permission to appeal
    • Costs assessment
    • Proportionality of costs
    • Leave to appeal to final court

  • 10 Jan 2024

    THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY v. REHABAID SOCIETY

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 33
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV402/2022

    The CA dismissed the Defendant's leave and stay applications, holding that construction is a unitary exercise and that, on the facts and proper application of principles of implication, the Plaintiff's licence to occupy was terminable unilaterally and the Plaintiff succeeded on implied term as well; the questions posed did not raise issues of great general or public importance; consequently there was no basis for a stay of execution, although an interim conditional stay was granted to permit a timely application for leave to the CFA; costs ordered against the Defendant in the sum of HK$250,00…

    • Termination of licence/contracts
    • Implied terms
    • Contract construction (unitary exercise)
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Stay of execution
    • Appellate standard of review

  • 8 Jan 2024

    LUI MING LOK v. NG IM FONG LORETTA

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 27
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV418/2020

    The Court determined that the two posed questions involve issues of great general or public importance and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; accordingly the application for leave was allowed.

    • Marriage nullity
    • Mental capacity to marry
    • Statutory construction of matrimonial causes ordinance s.20
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Interaction of statutory and common law grounds

  • 22 Aug 2023

    覃錫鴻 對 金英子經營新世界食品公司

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 962
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV478/2022

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not involve any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b), had no real prospect of success, and the applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 (no written submissions), so the application must be dismissed.

    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Labour tribunal appeal
    • Practice directions compliance
    • Public importance test

  • 21 Mar 2023

    有關 NGUYEN THI DONG 的事宜

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 380
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP146/2022

    Extension of time was refused because the delay (over six weeks) was lengthy, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay (pandemic did not justify the late filing given the circumstances), and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of public or widespread importance nor had a realistic prospect of success under s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; accordingly the late notice of motion was struck out.

    • Extension of time
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Judicial review
    • Non‑refoulement
    • Statutory jurisdictional requirements

  • 25 Nov 2022

    RE HUSSAIN SHABBIR

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1727
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP54/2022

    The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to particularize or provide evidence of errors in the judgments below; the application was therefore without merit and fact-specific and did not warrant leave.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Judicial review
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Extension of time
    • Procedure

  • 23 Nov 2022

    LEUNG PING CHIU, ROY, appointed by Order dated 12 May 2020 to represent the ESTATE OF YANG FOO-OI, since deceased v. WAI WAI CHEN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1730
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV241/2016

    Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed questions raised arguable points of law of general or public importance: the sham and fiduciary duty findings were supported by concurrent factual findings and established legal principles; issues of undue influence, family arrangements and causation do not disclose novel points meriting final appellate consideration; the application to admit fresh evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and Noble v Owens remittal was inapplicable; non-joinder and alleged concealment were fact-sensitive and insufficient to render the trial unfair.

    • Sham transactions
    • Estate duty avoidance schemes
    • Family arrangements
    • Agency and de bruyne trusts
    • Duty of disclosure in family compromises
    • Causation in undue influence

  • 17 Nov 2022

    RE BEGUM FATEMA

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1702
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP61/2022

    The applicant failed to show any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to identify specific errors in the Court of Appeal judgment; her allegations were bare, vague and fact-specific and thus did not justify granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, so the Notice of Motion was dismissed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Judicial review
    • Final appeal test under s22(1)(b) hkcfao

  • 22 Sept 2022

    有關 鄧添柱的事宜

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1401
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV297/2021

    The Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the bankrupt failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), lacked the requisite legal standing to continue the underlying proceedings or prosecute the appeal, the new letters were inadmissible fresh evidence at the leave stage, and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success; costs of HK$11,600 were awarded to the Official Receiver to be paid from the bankruptcy estate.

    • Standing to appeal
    • Leave to appeal to final court
    • Admission of fresh evidence on leave application
    • Assessment of costs