Re Wahyu Fitriyani

CACV 565/2024, [2026] HKCA 1897

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 「」THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2248 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 applicant’s appeal against the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 17 December 2024.

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

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 9 September 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following :

‘ I am pleading to the court to give me a chance to appeal at court of final appeal. The Judgment dated on 28 August 2025 is unreasonable. By the Honorable Justice K. Yeung and Honorable Justice Cheung.’

4.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 9 September 2025, the applicant 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 applicant has 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 applicant. 

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 9 September 2025 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person