RE BIJU MATTHEW alias TOM THOMAS MATHEW alias ANTHONY SAVIEL alias JOHN GEORGE JOSEPH

CACV 70/2025 [2025] HKCA 1046

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2025

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 667 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 706)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy given on 7 February 2025 refusing to extend time for application for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 6 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, he 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.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant asked for a second chance to go to the Court of Final Appeal but did not provide any grounds to support his application or his intended appeal.  This is not a viable ground for granting leave to appeal.  No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)  (b)  of the Ordinance. 

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

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