Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time/leave to appeal

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2023

BEGUM SHULI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 934
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP219/2023

The Court refused the application for extension of time to appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review or any viable ground of appeal; the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, so there was no prospect of success and granting an extension would be futile.
18 Jan 2023

RE RANJODH SINGH

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 79
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL815/2020

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew his leave application and the Court properly dismissed the application and sealed its order, there was nothing outstanding to appeal and the Court was functus officio; accordingly the application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed.
23 Dec 2019

CHEUNG CHIU HON 對 HAN YAN TAO

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1433
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP63/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant offered no credible explanation for the delay given she had legal representation at trial and had prepared an appeal record; the proposed fresh evidence failed Ladd v Marshall (not shown to be unobtainable with reasonable diligence, not credible on its face, and not likely to affect the outcome); allegations of bias and other grounds lacked any real prospect of success; the trial judge’s credibility and handwriting findings were not shown to be plainly wrong.
26 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAINAR

Citation

HKSAR v. ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAINAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC215/2013

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for an inordinate 6½ year delay and the proposed grounds lacked merit; the sentencing judge acted within discretion following prevailing guidelines (applying ecstasy benchmarks to ketamine), correctly treated importation as an aggravating factor and applied an appropriate one‑third discount for the guilty plea; the court exercised its s83W power to disallow one month of pre‑determination custody from reckoning against the sentence.
15 Jan 1998

CHINA LIGHT & POWER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL EDWARD ASHTON FORD

Citation

CHINA LIGHT & POWER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL EDWARD ASHTON FORD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/1995

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused: delay of about 17 months was inordinate and unjustified; no real prospect of success on the merits because exceptions to legal professional privilege were not established or particularised; granting relief would prejudice the plaintiffs; defendant's conduct (retention and unauthorised use of documents and pursuing US litigation) weighed heavily against extension of time.

Hong Kong Case Law

BEGUM SHULI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE RANJODH SINGH

CHEUNG CHIU HON 對 HAN YAN TAO

HKSAR v. ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAINAR

CHINA LIGHT & POWER CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL EDWARD ASHTON FORD