Re Compay Irene Navarro and Others

CACV 419/2024, [2025] HKCA 1094

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 419 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 550 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 18 September 2025, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 12 September 2025 (“the Judgment”)  ([2025] HKCA 822).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 7 October 2024, by which the Judge dismissed their application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 2497).

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 their Notice of Motion, the applicants stated:

“I am pleading to the court to give my family chance to appeal at supreme court. The Judgement is not reasonable.” (sic)

5.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants failed to lodge written submissions.

6.Given their failure to point to any error in the Judgment with specific particulars, their intended appeal is a nonstarter and must fail.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, their allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicants have 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 applicants’ intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2025 is dismissed.

The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd applicants acting in person