Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal out of time

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2024

MOHAMMED RABAA TUAHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1421
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2230/2020

The appeal out of time was dismissed because the Court's decision had been validly sent to the applicant's last known address and was therefore deemed received; the applicant's affirmation amounted to a withdrawal of the leave application; the decision was sealed and the Court lacked jurisdiction to re-open the matter.
12 Oct 2023

RAI SAMJHANA v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1168/2023

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with Order 53 by not stating any arguable grounds in Form 86, disclosed no reasonably arguable public law ground for judicial review, the Tribunal lawfully had power under s19(1)(b) and reasonably dismissed the appeal without a hearing on the facts, and the short unexplained delay did not justify granting additional time.
6 Jun 2023

LE THI DUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1368
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/2019

Extension of time refused because the applicant was seven days out of the extended period, she failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on appeal given the Board's unchallenged findings (lack of credibility, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation), and therefore there was no basis to permit pursuit of the appeal.
1 Jun 2023

ASIM MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1711/2021

The applicant's application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the underlying Order, made pursuant to the applicant's own application, had been sealed and the Court therefore had no further jurisdiction to deal with the application.
21 Nov 2022

HKW v. YYC

Citation

[2022] HKFC 245
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3123/2021

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay of about four months and three weeks was inordinate and inadequately explained, the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success as the interim access order was a case management decision intended to be short term, and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave.
15 Sept 2022

REN RONG t/a WAH YUNG ENGINEERING CO v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2816
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL917/2021

The Board correctly exercised its statutory discretion under s66(1A) IRO: the applicant's unilateral mistaken belief that government departments were closed during the pandemic did not amount to an "other reasonable cause" preventing filing; the Board's factual findings that the applicant was able but failed to act were rational and lawful, so the Board properly refused to extend time and the leave application is dismissed.
4 Jul 2022

WONG HING v. NG LEUNG FA

Citation

[2022] HKDC 636
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP165/2018

Limitation Ordinance s19(1) and s19(5) do not apply to the enforcement of a charging order; the plaintiff, as a secured creditor, may enforce the charge to recover the principal sum of HK$275,500 and interest as stated in the charging order absolute dated 29 October 2004. The defendant's application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed and the stay of execution is lifted.
1 Nov 2021

WEALTH GROWTH (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. SI BUN BUN CARMEN CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1363
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3633/2014

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the delay (nearly four months) was substantial, the plaintiff gave inexcusable reasons for the delay (change of counsel and lack of instructions were not accepted), the appeal had no real prospect of success because the Master had not erred in law and the costs order was reasonable, and the New Affirmation was inadmissible for want of leave and did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria.
27 Sept 2021

NGUYEN DUC DONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1374
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP60/2021

Extension of time was refused and the summons dismissed because the applicant's delay was inexcusable (failure to check mailbox) and he failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success on the merits to overcome the inexcusable delay; accordingly leave to appeal out of time was denied.
17 Aug 2021

RE GHALE TEJ BAHADUR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1123
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV220/2020

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; additionally, the points advanced were new and not properly the subject of leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.