Re Juwarti and Another

CACV 567/2024, [2026] HKCA 1898

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 270 of 2023)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

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 DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 17 December 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 1 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 :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There some error in my law making decision. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I do not think my case determined fairly.’

4.The applicants’ written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicants’ case was not determined fairly;

2)  The applicants, without knowing how the case was determined, it was not easy for the applicants to appeal;

3)  The applicants were never provided with legal and language assistance;

4)  The respondents breach procedural fairness, including unlawfully fettered its discretion, acted procedurally unfair, being unreasonable and irrational in public law sense, and failed to meet greater care and duty to self-represented litigants;

5)  The authorities’ quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable.

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 matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicants.  Findings of fact are within the province of the Board.  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 1 September 2025 is dismissed.

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