Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and extension of time

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1099/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's decision, the Board's factual findings on credibility, risk, state protection and internal relocation were not legally vulnerable, the Form 86 did not set out grounds enabling a reasonably arguable challenge, and the applicant gave no explanation for an almost two-year delay so no extension of time was warranted under O 53 r 4(1).
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1489/2025

The application was refused because it was filed overwhelmingly outside the three-month limit without any explanation for the serious delay and the proposed grounds did not show a realistic prospect of success given that the Board's findings on lack of evidence, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within its province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1149/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable public law grounds, failed to comply with Form 86 requirements, did not establish any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed factual findings, and was out of time with no satisfactory explanation.
7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL737/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant offered no explanation for the delay such that extension of time could be granted; the application was also withdrawn.
6 May 2026

UY SHERYL ORTIGUERO as guardian ad litem of UY TRIXSHIELL CASSIE ORTIGUERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL100/2026

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was filed well beyond the three-month limit and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn the Board's fact-finding, and procedural non-compliance (Order 80 r 2) was treated as a mere irregularity not rendering the application a nullity.
24 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL685/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds of error, failed to show that the Board's factual findings involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the application was brought late without explanation; therefore the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave was dismissed.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL448/2022

Extension of time to file Form 86 was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant filed 44 months and 26 days late without any explanation, the unexplained and inordinate delay evidenced lack of intention to prosecute and abuse of process, and the Board's Decision showed no detectable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality upon anxious scrutiny.
21 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1530/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 pleaded generic, unparticularised grounds that did not disclose any reasonably arguable case; the application was over eight months out of time and the Applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (including failure to update address and non‑compliance with disclosure duties); and there was no public law basis to vitiate the TCAB/NRCPO's lawful refusal to allow late filing under s.37ZT. The court amended the Form 86 on its own motion to name only the TCAB/NRCPO as Putative Respondent.
17 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL282/2021

Because the leave application was filed many months out of time without adequate explanation and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success — the Board's fact findings and the absence of evidence to establish a BOR 2 risk were lawful, rational and not procedurally unfair — the court refused both extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review.
17 Apr 2026

SUBBA MAMTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL22/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant filed out of time without explanation or good reason for extension, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board’s detailed credibility‑based decision, and there was no prospect of success on the merits; the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to India, reinforcing lack of prospect.