|
CACV 202/2025, [2025] HKCA 1099
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 202 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 810 OF 2024)
________________________
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
18 December 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 17 July 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 4 July 2025 (“the Judgment”) ([2025] HKCA 603). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 11 April 2025, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1538).
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
3. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:
“The Judgement is unreasonable. I plead to the High Court to give me a chance to file an appeal at supreme court to challenge the decision dated on 4 July 2025 by the Honourable Cheung and Honourable Au JJA.” (sic)
5. Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of his application.
6. The applicant’s application is devoid of merit. Although he claims that the Judgment was unreasonable, he fails to condescend upon particulars. His intended appeal is plainly a non-starter.
7. Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.
8. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 17 July 2025 is hereby dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|