Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Change of address

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

李首穎對友邦保險(國際)有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP125/2025

The court refused permission to appeal because each ground lacked a real prospect of success: service was properly effected by placing the subpoena in the plaintiff's mailbox; there was no unreasonable delay in notifying the sealed order; the judge's findings about the plaintiff's mailbox and failure to notify change of address were reasonable; cancellation of the oral hearing and handling by written procedure was within case management powers and not unfair; there was no evidence of bias; accordingly the leave application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the first defendant (assessed…
6 Mar 2023

DO KHANH DUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 706
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1301/2021

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for substantial delay, neglected the duty to update his address so that documents could be served, failed to disclose grounds of appeal showing no prospect of success, and granting extension would prejudice respondents and enable abuse of the non-refoulement process.
5 Jun 2019

RE SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL473/2017

The application was dismissed because the court record showed the impugned decision was sent to the applicant's last known address and the applicant produced no particulars or documentary evidence of any change of address or other adequate explanation for non-receipt or delay, so no relief or extension of time was justified.
25 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1035/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant provided no acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to notify change of address so court communications did not reach him due to his own fault, did not progress the judicial review for an extended period, and there were no arguable grounds in the underlying non-refoulement claim; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
4 Apr 2019

RE GURDEV SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP109/2018

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the notice was filed 28 days late, service failure resulted from the applicant's provision of an incorrect/incomplete address and failure to notify change of address, and the applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance or any other basis under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484 to justify granting leave.
2 Apr 2019

RE AMIENGHEMHEN AYERE PRECIOUS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 607
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL659/2017

The court concluded that the applicant's delay was attributable to his own failure to keep his address updated and that service to the last known address justified treating the delay as his responsibility; on that basis the court assessed the excusability of the delay.
15 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCA 183
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV289/2018

Where an applicant fails to provide required documentary evidence of reasons for delay and has not shown he notified the immigration authorities of a change of address, an adjudicator's refusal to extend time under section 37ZT is not unlawful or procedurally unfair; the court will not overturn that discretion or admit fresh evidence not presented to the adjudicator, and will dismiss an appeal lacking merit against such exercise of discretion.
10 Jan 2019

RE RAM ISHVER DASS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 27
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV504/2018

The Judge and Board did not err: the applicant failed to substantiate special circumstances for late filing (notably failure to notify change of address and insufficient evidence), the Board acted within the statutory procedure under section 37ZT(2), and the Court of Appeal will not permit re-litigation of the merits where leave for judicial review was properly refused.
13 Jan 2015

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

Citation

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4041/2011

The plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong and does not have substantial fixed assets in the jurisdiction readily available for costs; the defendants did not prove an address change aimed at evasion; the plaintiff's claim is genuine but not highly likely to succeed; therefore it is just to exercise the court's discretion to order security for costs of HK$532,845, stay further proceedings pending payment and dismiss the claim if security is not provided.
17 Nov 1999

LI KOON WAH v. CHAN HOI WAI WALLACE

Citation

LI KOON WAH v. CHAN HOI WAI WALLACE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13412/1998

The plaintiff was not shown to be ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong; even if he were also resident in Canada the court would not exercise its discretion to order security for costs because the plaintiff has a genuine connection to Hong Kong (habitual residence, assets in Hong Kong and a bona fide claim) and there was no evidence he changed address to evade litigation.