Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed service

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

LE TIEN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1369/2021

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no valid reason for the four-day delay, the Court's decision had been properly sent to his last known address (deemed served) and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board had reasonably found the non-refoulement claim unsubstantiated.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1368/2025

Refusal to extend time because the applicant provided no valid reason for the one‑day delay, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated, and no sufficient prejudice to justify extension; therefore the application was dismissed.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2466/2024

Refusal to extend time: applicant failed to explain more than 11 months' delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because the Board and Director found the non-refoulement claim unsubstantiated; procedural and precedent factors therefore do not justify extension.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL128/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was over two months late, provided no valid or credible explanation for the delay (claim of non-receipt was not accepted), and the intended appeal lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's substantiation findings that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated and there was no evidence the father intended to kill her.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2314
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1277/2025

Extension of time refused because the applicant had a three-day delay, provided no valid reason for delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the Director's and Board's decisions rejecting the unsubstantiated non-refoulement claim were upheld; accordingly the application was dismissed.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1246/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than two weeks late, failed to offer any explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; the application was properly determined on paper under the Rules.
22 Apr 2026

SAPUTRA ALVIN NUR ALAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1213/2025

Extension of time was denied because the applicant was over one month late, provided no valid reason to rebut deemed service or justify the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly the application for extension and the appeal were dismissed.
25 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 859
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2025

Refusal of extension of time because the applicant offered no valid reason for the delay (decision deemed received), the delay was minimal but unjustified, and the intended appeal lacked realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and availability of state protection/internal relocation.
11 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1061/2025

The applicant was deemed to have received the Court's decision; he offered no valid reason for the seven‑week delay and his intended appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; accordingly the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application for extension of time.
4 Feb 2026

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. DARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 106
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2025

The Court held the SOC sufficiently pleaded the material fact that notice of acceleration was given by the KWM letters and did not need to plead the precise means of delivery; Clause 27.3(a)(ii) unambiguously makes a letter posted with postage prepaid effective five business days after posting whether or not actually received, so no triable issue existed and summary judgment was correctly upheld.