Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and discretion

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL407/2020

Extension refused because the applicant failed to provide a good explanation for a delay of over one month, failed to update his address despite confirming a different address at the earlier hearing, and advanced no grounds for the intended appeal such that there was no prospect of success, making it an inappropriate exercise of the court’s discretion to extend time.
10 Oct 2023

RE RAI RANJANA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1134
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP60/2022

The Court refused to extend time and dismissed the Notice of Motion because the applicant was nearly six weeks late with no explanation, failed to file submissions as directed, and failed to demonstrate any arguable merits or any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, such that the exercise of discretion to extend time and grant leave was not justified.
30 Sept 2022

RE MILAH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1435
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP245/2020

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant was about one week late without adequate explanation and the intended appeal lacked any arguable merit and did not disclose any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO.
31 Oct 2014

LAW KWOK FAI PAUL AND OTHERS v. WELLMEI (HK) PLASTICS & ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW KWOK FAI PAUL AND OTHERS v. WELLMEI (HK) PLASTICS & ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV45/2014

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because it failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition: the evidence and explanations were known to the deponent well before the interlocutory hearing and therefore could have been obtained with reasonable diligence; additionally, even if conditions were met, the court would have refused admission in the exercise of its discretion because of unjustified delay and adverse case management implications.
29 Jun 2005

TSE KAI BOR v. TSE KAI KIT

Citation

TSE KAI BOR v. TSE KAI KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1353/2003

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the defendant delayed bringing the application despite earlier awareness of the same evidence, there was no fresh material on foreign residence or merits sufficient to justify revisiting the matter, and granting the application at that late stage would unfairly delay a trial already set down; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse security and awarded costs against the defendant rather than ordering personal liability against the solicitor.
27 Jul 2000

CHEN SHUN ZHONG v. SUCCESS CIVIL & FOUNDATION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN SHUN ZHONG v. SUCCESS CIVIL & FOUNDATION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV300/1999

Failure to comply with the peremptory unless order of 5 December 1996 resulted in automatic striking out of the 2nd defendant's defence and entry of judgment; the 2nd defendant failed to provide adequate particulars or a satisfactory, prompt explanation for delay and failed to show a meritorious defence or compelling reason to extend time, therefore the court properly refused to set aside the judgments and dismissed the appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

RE RAI RANJANA

RE MILAH

LAW KWOK FAI PAUL AND OTHERS v. WELLMEI (HK) PLASTICS & ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

TSE KAI BOR v. TSE KAI KIT

CHEN SHUN ZHONG v. SUCCESS CIVIL & FOUNDATION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER