RE HOUNSOU TRIN GBETOME VALENTIN

CACV 494/2024, [2025] HKCA 430

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 3005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 494 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2183 of 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Barnes J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  On 8 April 2025, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”)  refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 8 April 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not lodged any written submission in support of his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s 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 his Notice of Motion.

Discussion

4.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

5.  The Notice of Motion stated:

“ I don’t agree with the decision. [I]ts unreasonable the Judgment. I want to appeal against the decision at final court of appeal. Please reconsider my application.”

6.  The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.