Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time/undue delay

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL521/2021

The application was out of time by about 2.5 months without any explanation and, on the merits, the TCAB decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant's case was plainly unarguable; therefore there was no good reason to extend time and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
23 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL646/2021

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because the applicant failed to explain almost nine months' delay and failed to present any reasonably arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, which properly applied the legal principles and found state protection available; granting an extension would prejudice and delay the refoulement process.
3 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 446
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL587/2021

Refusal of leave and of extension of time was justified because the application was grossly out of time (approximately 2 years 9 months), no acceptable explanation for the delay was provided, the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable grounds of error of law or procedural unfairness, and the TCAB decision showed no legal error, unfairness or irrationality; therefore there was no good reason to extend time and leave was dismissed.
3 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 445
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL489/2021

Refusal to grant extension of time and dismissal of the leave application was warranted because the application was grossly out of time (almost four years) with no satisfactory explanation, the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review, the TCAB decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and granting an extension would prejudice the orderly refoulement process.
24 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1376/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review and, upon rigorous anxious scrutiny the TCAB/NRCPO's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed; additionally the application was over ten months out of time with no good reason to extend time, so extension and leave were refused.
16 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL680/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because (1) it was filed after an excessive and unexplained delay without any good reason to extend time; (2) the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds against the TCAB/NRCPO decision; (3) on rigorous scrutiny no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was discernible in the TCAB/NRCPO decision regarding non‑submission of the NCF and failure to satisfy statutory criteria; and (4) remittal would be futile as no different outcome was realistically likely; accordingly leave was refused and the Form 86…
25 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL691/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant filed more than seven months out of time without providing a credible or documented explanation for delay, failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review that would survive enhanced scrutiny, and the TCAB/NRCPO decision showed no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention.
1 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL655/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and no extension of time granted because (1) the substantive grounds were unarguable or improperly directed at a Director's decision rendered no longer reviewable after appeal to TCAB; (2) the remaining grounds were generic, vague and lacked particularisation and therefore failed the realistic prospect/arguability threshold; and (3) the application was unduly and substantially delayed (approx. 29 months) without a credibly valid explanation, such that there was no good reason to extend time.
30 Apr 2021

HARIATININGSIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1348/2018

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant had been guilty of most substantial and unexplained delay (over 19 months), the delay would be detrimental to good administration and cause prejudice, and the arguability/merits of the claim did not outweigh the public interest in finality and administrative efficiency despite the Board’s limited failure to consider merits.
2 Feb 2018

NAVEED MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL209/2017

The court granted a short extension of time because the applicant’s brief delay was credibly explained and caused no prejudice, but refused leave because the intended grounds were not reasonably arguable: the applicant failed to provide particulars or evidence to show error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board, and the findings that the dispute was private, lacked state involvement, and that internal relocation was available were adequately supported by COI and evidence.