Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 22(1)(b) cfao

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2025

CAMARA LAMIN M v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 766
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV294/2024

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 s22(1)(b), offered no specific legal error or unfairness in the Court of Appeal judgment, and failed to comply with the Registrar's direction to file written submissions; there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
1 Aug 2025

VI THI HIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 713
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV176/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any particular mistakes in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, and failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave, including under the 'or otherwise' limb.
5 Nov 2024

NAIDA BADUGE NISHANTHA PRADEEP DE SILVA alias BOVI THANTRIGE LASANTHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1019
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2023

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to comply with court directions, failed to demonstrate any mistake or unfairness in the Court of Appeal's decision, the tendered one-page document was irrelevant on a de bene esse basis, and no question of great general or public importance or other exceptional ground under section 22(1)(b) was established.
23 Oct 2024

RE MADBER NASIR

Citation

[2024] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV264/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, did not point to any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any reasonably arguable ground, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb; therefore leave to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
7 Dec 2022

RE HARBHAJAN SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV207/2022

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raises a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate prospects of success; accordingly leave to appeal is refused.
12 Aug 2022

RE SHAH ZAHID

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1172
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP107/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the matters relied on related to the applicant's personal claim, did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and were unsupported assertions lacking particulars; accordingly statutory requirements for leave were not met and leave was refused.
11 Jan 2022

RE REKHI NAVDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 60
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP247/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any material prejudice from the alleged lack of language or legal assistance or from the minors' lack of representation, such that no arguable ground for the Court of Final Appeal was established.
17 Dec 2021

RE AWAN TANVEER AHMED

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1888
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV586/2020

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 as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and failed to raise any reasonably arguable ground or any basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
17 Dec 2021

RE SHAMS UL QAMAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1907
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV567/2020

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable error, and no basis existed under the otherwise limb of section 22(1)(b) Cap 484.
17 Nov 2021

RE WIMALASURIYA DONA SHAYAMALIE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1687
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV651/2020

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 under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal judgment, and sought to rely on Medical Evidence that was not properly adduced and was irrelevant at the leave stage; there was therefore no basis to grant leave, including under the "otherwise" limb.