Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate to appeal

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2025

HKSAR v. WOO WING SEE, PHYLLIS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA350/2024

The court refused the section 32 certificate because the decision did not involve a point of law of great and general importance and the framed point was not reasonably arguable; specifically the court found no basis to read section 18(1) of the Prisons Ordinance as requiring additional authorization by the Commissioner and rejected the contention that the court's interpretation would criminalise legal representatives of prisoners.
22 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. LI CHEUNG CHOI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 290
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC210/2018

The Court granted an out‑of‑time certificate on the reframed Question 1 because the admissibility of an accused's statements to medical practitioners (and the consequent admissibility of the expert opinion) where the accused does not testify is a point of law of great and general importance that was involved in the Court of Appeal decision; the Court refused a certificate on Question 2 because the meaning of "the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact" did not arise on the facts and was not a point of great and general importance in the decision.
19 Jun 2023

LAI CHEE-YING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 777
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV357/2022

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the Questions sought to be certified raised new points of law that had not been previously argued and thus were unsuitable for certification, and because the appeals had become academic as the substantive disputes had ceased; consequently it was unnecessary and futile to extend time for a late application.
29 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. KWOK WING KIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3831
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA187/2021

The court applied the established certification test: the applicant must show a point of law of great and general importance or that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the proposed question is reasonably arguable; on the material before the court the threshold was not met and certification was refused.
29 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. SUM HO WAH HOWARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA187/2017

The court treated knowledge as not proved but found that the magistrate was entitled to conclude that the appellant at least had reasonable grounds to believe the sums were proceeds of an indictable offence; accordingly the convictions were upheld and the certificate was refused.
27 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 921
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC368/2015

The application for a certificate was refused because the issue had become academic after the prosecution offered no evidence and the accused was acquitted; mootness is a strong factor against granting a certificate and the court will only exercise its discretion to hear academic appeals where a sufficiently great public interest justifies doing so.
27 Aug 2014

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA71/2014

The certificate to appeal was refused because there was no point of law of great and general importance to be decided: the issues raised fell within the existing principle in Wong Sau Ming, the prior decisions did not amount to findings the witness had lied, and the question was academic; non-compliance with Practice Direction 2.2 was also noted.
3 Jun 2014

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. PACIFIC SUN ADVISORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. PACIFIC SUN ADVISORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2013

The court refused to extend time and refused the certificate because the delay was very considerable, some delay was unexplained, lack of funds is not an acceptable general justification and there were no special circumstances to justify extending time.
5 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. “Z”

Citation

HKSAR v. “Z”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA291/2010

The court refused the application for a certificate to apply for leave to appeal because the issues raised (including the Browne v Dunn point and the use of the videotape/video link) did not give rise to a question warranting certification, and the court held it did not have jurisdiction to grant bail; accordingly the certificate application was refused and bail was denied for lack of jurisdiction.
22 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. LEE WAN LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE WAN LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/2006

The Court held it had considered the relevant grounds of appeal (beyond the failure to view videotapes), properly concluded a retrial was warranted, and refused the certificate; the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in criminal cases was dismissed because this Court lacks power to grant such leave.