Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay/extension of time

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 925
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV993/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's decision refusing leave: the judge properly considered delay factors and the merits, the applicant offered no good reason for the significant delay nor viable grounds to challenge the Board's decision, and legal principle gives primacy to the Board on factual assessments and permits paper determination under s.12 Schedule 1A Cap.115; absence of entitlement to free legal/interpretation services does not render the process unfair in the circumstances.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL223/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds, the Board's decision displayed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in view of its credibility and internal relocation findings, and the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success; a technical one-day delay was waived but did not justify granting leave.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL430/2026

The application for leave was refused and time to bring the application was not extended because the application was excessively late and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and internal relocation conclusion were matters within its fact‑finding province and were not irrational, unlawful or procedurally unfair such as to justify judicial intervention.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1421/2025

The application for extension of time is refused because the leave application was filed more than three months after the Board's Decision and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on the merits; the Board's factual findings (no genuine and substantial risk, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation) were within its province and did not disclose error of law or procedural unfairness, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
14 Apr 2026

NWEKE UCHECHUKWU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL259/2021

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual assessment were properly reached and not susceptible to judicial review; Applicant's concession that he no longer identifies as homosexual and evidence of possible internal relocation removed any real foreseeable risk, so there was no prospect of success.
10 Apr 2026

CABRISTANTE MEL VALERIE CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1541/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds or disclose material facts, the Board's decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the application was filed one year late with no explanation so no extension of time was justified.
25 Mar 2026

HUSSAIN SARDAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL433/2021

Leave dismissed because the application was filed out of time without a satisfactory explanation and, on the merits, the intended judicial review lacked reasonable arguability: the Board's decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2795/2025

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the application was over three years late, the applicant failed to justify the delay, admitted he could not say the Board was wrong, and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as to give the applicant a realistic prospect of success.
10 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1113/2021

The application for leave was dismissed and extension of time refused because the applicant provided no arguable grounds of judicial review and no satisfactory explanation for a delay of over three months; the Board's decision represented a proper anxious scrutiny of the facts and was not shown to be vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1474/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed over 17 months out of time with no acceptable explanation to extend time, and because the grounds advanced were generic and unparticularised and did not disclose any reasonably arguable public law errors capable of vitiating the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the TCAB/NRCPO’s adverse credibility and risk findings were within its evaluative province and not shown to be legally defective.