Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal prospects

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2012
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2084/2020

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant was over two months late, he offered no valid explanation for the delay (his assertion of non-receipt was not accepted), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success since the Director and the Board had properly rejected his non-refoulement claim; accordingly the summons was dismissed.
17 Apr 2026

周宴鋌對 DOULTSONS LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 636
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP119/2025

Extension of time was refused because the delay was substantial, the applicant's reasons for delay were inadequate, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success as it failed to identify any legal or principled error by the trial judge and relied on matters irrelevant to the judgment; costs were awarded to respondent in the sum of HKD 60,000.
11 Mar 2026

ISKANDAR ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1081/2025

Refusal of extension of time was justified because the applicant was two days late, provided no explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unsubstantiated findings, therefore the application is dismissed.
27 Feb 2026

KHAN JAMSHAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 90
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1466/2020

The summons for an extension of time was dismissed because the delay was only one day, the Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of appeal or any error of law, his claim of not understanding English was contradicted by English filings with translation clauses and produced no identified prejudice, and granting an extension would be futile and needlessly prejudicial to the respondent.
25 Feb 2026

OBIMKA KASMEI AZUBUIKE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 860
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1151/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than 13 days late, offered no valid reason for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's rejection of his unsubstantiated non-refoulement claim; accordingly the application was dismissed.
11 Feb 2026

JAGTAR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1254/2020

Extension of time refused because the applicant was 29 days late, provided no valid explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the Board had properly rejected the non-refoulement claim and found state protection available; accordingly discretionary refusal to extend time was warranted.
11 Feb 2026

NNAMANI SUNDAY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1058/2025

Extension of time refused because the applicant was more than one month late, failed to provide a valid or sufficient reason for delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility finding, thus dismissal of the application was warranted.
7 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 18
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1103/2020

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was 20 days late, provided no valid or sufficient reason for the delay (a mistaken calculation and holiday belief did not justify the delay), and the intended appeal lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Court's prior dismissal of leave.
20 Mar 2025

RE VU TUAN ANH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP131/2024

Refusal to extend time was correct because the applicant had an unexplained and serious delay of over ten months and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify any viable legal ground to challenge the Board's credibility findings or show error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness, so extension would be futile.
6 Mar 2025

ROHANA-SIMATUPANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL980/2024

Extension of time refused because delay exceeded four months, the applicant provided no explanation or affidavit for the lateness, the Board's factual findings (availability of state protection and internal relocation) were unchallenged and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; balancing the statutory factors therefore required refusal of extension.