Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty lawyer service

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1109/2022

The applicant provided no explanation or evidence for an approximately eight‑month delay; the Board correctly applied ss37ZT and 37ZV of the Immigration Ordinance and reasonably concluded the applicant did not exercise all due diligence; the proposed grounds of judicial review do not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and are not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success; accordingly no extension of time is warranted and leave is refused.
27 Sept 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1411
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV340/2020

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and there was no basis for the alternative limb; the intended appeal had no merit.
15 Aug 2019

RE HUSSAIN MANSOOR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 861
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP39/2019

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and unexplained and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings were open to it, there was no identifiable public law error or procedural unfairness, and it would be futile to extend time for a hopeless appeal.
8 Apr 2019

RE HAIDER SUFYAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 393
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV447/2018

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the asserted grounds (lack of language assistance, lack of legal representation, and alleged disparity by the Duty Lawyer Service) were not reasonably arguable as bases for judicial review and did not raise questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
19 Sept 2018

RE GOROSPE MARY ANGELINE O

Citation

[2018] HKCA 568
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2018

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant’s grounds concerned only her individual circumstances, did not raise issues of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and lacked merit given she had opportunities to present BOR 2 material and to seek Duty Lawyer Service assistance; therefore the statutory threshold for leave was not met.
13 Nov 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KA KI

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KA KI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA502/1996

Section 69 of the Magistrates Ordinance must be construed to permit an award only up to the amount for which the defendant is personally liable; the Duty Lawyer Service's scheme of undertakings and authorisations does not create a personal liability in the defendant beyond the $300 handling charge, therefore the magistrate's award of $3,900 was wrong in law and must be limited to $300.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

RE HUSSAIN MANSOOR

RE HAIDER SUFYAN

RE GOROSPE MARY ANGELINE O

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG KA KI