Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time/late filing

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

JASPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1597/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the NOA was lodged 13 days late without a reasonable explanation or special circumstances under the statutory test; the Board correctly applied the law, relied on the binding 2015 Decision which negated merits of a BOR 2 claim, and its 2020 Decision was neither procedurally unfair nor irrational and therefore had no realistic prospect of being successfully judicially reviewed.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1018/2020

Leave was granted and time extended because the applicant's challenge was reasonably arguable: the Board had refused late filing without assessing the merits and that omission was reasonably arguable as an error of law and procedural unfairness, and despite significant delay an extension was justified by a realistic prospect of success informed by relevant appellate authorities.
17 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2938
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL985/2020

Leave was granted because it is reasonably arguable that the Board unlawfully stopped at consideration of delay without addressing the merits as required by s.37ZT(2); the Board's decision lacks any clear account of merits consideration and thus raises arguable error of law and procedural unfairness sufficient to meet the leave threshold.
28 Mar 2023

VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 711
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL865/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied section 37ZT by requiring written evidence of due diligence and circumstances beyond control, the Board's factual findings that the applicant was notified of the deadline and provided unsupported reasons for delay were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success.
16 Sept 2022

TRAN VAN HOANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL612/2019

The Board erred in law by failing to make findings and give reasons rejecting the Applicant's unsubstantiated explanations for delay and by failing to take account of the merits of the intended appeals as required by s37ZT(2)(b) and authoritative Court of Appeal decisions; consequently the Applicant's intended judicial review is reasonably arguable and leave is granted.
12 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1511/2020

Leave was granted because the Board committed procedural impropriety by refusing to consider the merits of the applicant's case (as demonstrated by the Director's Decision) when exercising its discretion under s37ZT to allow late filing; the applicant therefore has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
5 Jan 2022

SANIDAD YOLANDO JR OBRERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 24
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1550/2021

The Board lawfully exercised its discretion to refuse an extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a clear, credible explanation showing all due diligence for a five‑month delay and there were no unforeseen circumstances preventing timely filing; on the merits the Director's findings of low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation meant the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.
22 Nov 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL763/2019

Leave was granted because the applicant showed a realistic prospect of success: the Board's decision refusing extension of time gave no indication it had considered the merits and the Director's decisions as required by authority (Re Khan Kamal Ahmed), rendering the Board's exercise of discretion susceptible to judicial review.
22 Nov 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL762/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board lawfully exercised its discretion to refuse extension of time after considering both delay and merits; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success.
16 Nov 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3365
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL416/2020

The intended judicial review lacked reasonable prospects of success because the Director and the TCAB made defensible findings on credibility, absence of state complicity and availability of internal relocation; the applicant failed to explain delays in filing appeals and produced no new material or reliable evidence to show a real risk, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.