Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 22(1)(b) court of final appeal ordinance

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 762
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP132/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, failed to show any error in the Court of Appeal judgment or any viable ground of appeal, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; there was no basis under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b).
24 Mar 2026

RE VALDEZ JEYSON BALDO

Citation

[2026] HKCA 461
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP77/2023

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant provided no explanation for a material delay of over two months, failed to comply with directions and file written submissions (thus abandoning those submissions), and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable ground under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484; no basis existed under the ‘otherwise’ limb to grant leave.
28 Nov 2025

RE BIJU MATTHEW alias TOM THOMAS MATHEW alias ANTHONY SAVIEL alias JOHN GEORGE JOSEPH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1046
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV70/2025

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and provided no grounds for the proposed appeal, so the statutory requirements of section 22(1)(b) were not met.
22 Jul 2025

RE NAJMUL MOHAMMAD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 665
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV260/2024

The notice of motion was dismissed because the applicant's submissions were broad, vague and unparticularised, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, and no basis existed under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave; factual challenges were matters for the Board.
22 Jul 2025

RE DON AMARASINGHALAGE DON CHANDRA JANAKA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 664
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV248/2024

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) of the Ordinance, his submissions and enclosures were broad, vague and did not demonstrate any error of law in the Deputy High Court Judge's decision, and there was no basis to admit further evidence or to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb of section 22(1)(b).
11 Jul 2025

PHAM VAN DUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 638
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2023

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify particular errors in the Court of Appeal's decision or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb.
13 Jun 2025

RE MUHAMMAD UMAIR

Citation

[2025] HKCA 528
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV368/2024

The statutory threshold in section 22(1)(b) was not met because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and advanced grounds confined to his case which did not demonstrate any error of law in the Court of Appeal's judgment; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
13 Jun 2025

RE NGO THI BICH THUY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 526
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV287/2024

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; the matters argued were personal to the applicants, did not engage or show error in the Court of Appeal's reasons, and therefore did not meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal.
22 May 2025

RE HOUNSOU TRIN GBETOME VALENTIN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 430
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV494/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) and no basis was shown under the 'otherwise' limb; therefore statutory requirements for leave were not met.
23 Apr 2025

RE NANA RIYANI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 355
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b); she raised new factual and legal points for the first time in the leave application which are inadmissible; and her grounds did not engage the reasons for dismissal of her appeal, so the statutory test for leave was not met.