Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 convention against torture

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2023

NASIR MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1278/2022

The applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no arguable legal error in the Director's decision and no basis to extend time for the late leave application; given the history of repeated failed claims and the applicant's evident intention to use proceedings solely to remain in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
24 Aug 2021

SOPLAPUCO MATUTE MANUEL ANDRES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1174
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; the judge applied the correct enhanced standard, examined the Board's decision with anxious scrutiny and reasonably concluded there was no realistic prospect of success in judicial review.
30 Apr 2021

RE JUM ALIE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2017

Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide any timely or adequate explanation for the delay or for non-receipt of the order, had not kept the court informed of his address, and the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success given there were no arguable grounds for judicial review; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
20 Oct 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2018

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or evidence for the delay in receiving court correspondence, no arguable grounds of review or prospect of success were shown, and in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
8 Oct 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL112/2018

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for a lengthy delay, the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success as grounds were generic and unsupported by particulars or evidence, and granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice and risked opening the floodgates to similar unjustified delays.
26 Aug 2020

SHERPA PEMBA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2176
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1115/2017

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant offered no adequate or credible explanation for the lengthy delay, provided no substantive grounds or affidavit evidencing a real prospect of success, had been dilatory in dealings with authorities and failed to maintain a proper address for service, and therefore granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.
18 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL890/2017

Although the applicant's delay was negligible and the change of address and court filing delay were noted, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the underlying judicial review application had no arguable grounds; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time and the summons for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed.
16 Aug 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was out of time by approximately 36 days, failed to provide the required supporting affirmation or satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court found no arguable grounds of appeal or merit in the underlying claim, and on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
26 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL797/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a prompt and credible explanation for a substantial delay, provided no adequate evidence of non‑receipt of the Order, and the underlying judicial review had no arguable merit warranting an extension; in the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant extension.
3 Apr 2019

SAKIB AHMED alias MD SAKIB AHMED alias SHOHEL MD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL954/2017

The extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable, prompt and full explanation for the delay, did not act promptly after awareness of the deadline, and the underlying judicial review application lacked merit, so granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.