RE KARTINI

CACV 91/2025 [2025] HKCA 1047

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2025

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2330 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 4 August 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 699)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 14 February 2025 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 19 August 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Court, she has not lodged any written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion stated the following as the grounds of appeal:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some error in my law maker authorities. The discriminatory act of authorities towards non-refoulement claimants merely on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable and determined to the Spirit of Judicial System. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”

7.  We are of the view that the grounds in the Notice of Appeal do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal. Critically, contrary to the requirement of section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, the applicant has not identified any question of great general and public importance that merits the case being considered by the Court of Final Appeal. Further, the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are mere general and vague assertions and do not engage the reasons we gave for the dismissal of the appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.