Re Surimah Tarsodi and Another

CACV 453/2024, [2026] HKCA 1896

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2130 of 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 28 August 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and K Yeung J (as he then was)) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 28 October 2024 refusing leave for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 10 September 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion the following :

‘ Please give me chance to appeal against the Judgment dated on 28 August 2025 by the Honorable Cheung JA and Honorable K. Yeung J to Supreme Court.’

4.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 10 September 2025, the applicants failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated deadline.  Accordingly, the notice of motion is now dealt with on paper only without an oral hearing.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicants. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 10 September 2025 is dismissed.

The 1^st and 2^nd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person