RE GARCIA DENNIS CASENAS

CACV 432/2024, [2025] HKCA 458

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 2494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 432 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1971 of 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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 17 April 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant lodged a written submission on 2 May 2025 in support of his application. 

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

4.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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

5.  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.

6.  The Notice of Motion stated:

“ I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation. ”

7.  The contents of his written submission was in identical terms with the one he filed on 25 February 2025 in support of his application to appeal before us.[2]

8.  The matters stated in the Notice of Motion and his written submission 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).

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

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

[1] [2025] HKCA 303.

[2] See Paragraph 12 of our judgment dated 8 April 2025.