Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

VIKRAMJEET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2023

Dismissal of the leave application and adjournment application was required because there was no Board decision of 22 October 2021 to review (the applicant had appealed then unequivocally withdrawn the appeal and the Board allowed the withdrawal), the TCAB appeal procedure was the suitable alternative remedy which the applicant had used and abandoned, and the leave application was filed after substantial unexplained delay and constituted an abuse of process; the adjournment application lacked identified relevant evidence and was therefore refused.
15 May 2026

BIKRAMJEET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV385/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's exercise of discretion to refuse an extension of time: the six-month delay was substantial and unexplained, the complaints about language and legal assistance were not raised below and lacked merit, and there were no arguable legal or procedural errors in the Board's or Judge's approach warranting judicial review.
8 May 2026

HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY FAISAL alias CH FAISAL HUSSAIN alias HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1150/2021

Extension of time was refused because the application was seriously out of time and the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; absence of an arguable case on the merits meant no basis to exercise discretion to extend time, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
6 May 2026

LI XIAO YI v. TANG CHUNG WAH (also known as ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP406/2025

The defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify adjourning the trial because the pending appeal applications were not pursued diligently, their outcomes were unlikely to materially affect the contempt issues, the recusal application had already been dismissed as not reasonably arguable, and the interests of timely determination and court scheduling outweighed the defendant's grounds for delay; accordingly the adjournment application was dismissed and costs nisi ordered.
30 Apr 2026

MANANGAN IRENE MANGLICMOT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1687/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay (one year and ten days against a 14-day appeal period) was very inordinate, the applicant offered no adequate reason for the delay, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as it repeated factual complaints that are not reviewable absent error of law; granting an extension would cause prejudice and constitute abuse of process.
22 Apr 2026

HUSSAIN MUMTAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1978/2020

Extension of time refused because applicant offered inconsistent and implausible explanations for the delay, failed to specify any grounds for the intended appeal, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; accordingly the summons for extension was dismissed.
17 Apr 2026

SUKHWINDER MASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL310/2021

Extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review were refused because the applicant suffered an inordinate unexplained delay (34 months and 27 days), had a credible opportunity to act earlier (he had the decision), offered no satisfactory explanation, the delay evidenced lack of intention to prosecute and lack of merits, and the Board's Second Decision disclosed no legal error or unfairness warranting indulgence.
15 Apr 2026

GAZI SADDAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2011
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2102/2020

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant provided inconsistent and inadequate reasons for delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; absent such prospect, an extension will not be granted.
15 Apr 2026

TALWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2000/2020

The summons for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant provided no good reason for delay, no particularised grounds showing error by the judge, and no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review, therefore extension was refused as seeking to pursue a hopeless appeal.
2 Apr 2026

MEHMOOD TAHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL236/2021

A 7-day delay was not significant but the applicant failed to provide any explanation or to identify any arguable grounds or errors in the Board's or Director's decisions; because there was no reasonable prospect of success the court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons as futile.