Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time for appeal

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

三昇信貸有限公司對 WU TIN YICK

Citation

[2026] HKDC 706
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP914/2025

The application for permission to appeal out of time was dismissed because the defendant failed to file any affidavit explaining the delay or to produce evidence supporting his asserted ground (the mother’s equitable interest); absent such explanation or evidence there was no special reason to extend time and the late application must be refused. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the assessed sum of HK$12,000.
15 May 2026

HKSAR v. WANG ZHI

Citation

[2026] HKCA 977
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/2025

Leave to appeal against sentence out of time was granted because refusal would shut out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal; applying the Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines reduced the appropriate starting point from 23 years 9 months to about 20 years 6 months; the court upheld a 2‑year uplift for entering Hong Kong to commit the offence; applying a 25% discount for the late plea to the resulting notional sentence produced a sentence of 16 years 10 months, and the appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence from 19 years 4 months to 16 years 10 months.
12 May 2026

HKSAR v. KATA MALUSI NICHOLAS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 965
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/2025

The Court refused the out‑of‑time leave application and upheld the 10‑year sentence because the sentencing judge correctly applied the Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines, properly adjusted the starting point for the applicant's courier role and international element, gave appropriate credit for mitigation including participation in anti‑drug activity and assistance to authorities, and applied the one‑third guilty plea discount; the applicant's comparative case assertions and explanation for delay were insufficient to justify intervention or extension of time.
8 Apr 2026

程祉諾對 TRENDY FITNESS PARTY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 522
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6423/2024

The court held that service by ordinary post to the registered office and other addresses was valid (none of the mail was returned and the defendant attended the hearing), the defendant had notice and opportunity to produce the material, the appeal period was extended as a discretionary matter, and there was no legal error or unreasonableness in the hearing officer's costs assessment; therefore the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
2 Apr 2026

MUHAMMAD IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1924/2020

The 18-day delay was significant; the applicant failed to provide reliable evidence of non-receipt of the decision; he also failed to identify any error or put forward any arguable grounds of appeal such that there was no reasonable prospect of success; weighing the delay, lack of justification and hopeless prospect rendered an extension futile, therefore leave to appeal out of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
2 Apr 2026

AHMAD ADEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2413/2020

Refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time because the applicant's delay of 3 years and 8 months was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide proposed grounds or identify any error in the decision so there was no reasonable prospect of success, and granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial.
6 Mar 2026

嘉信大廈業主立案法團 v. 張笑媚

Citation

[2026] HKCA 312
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2024

Section 50 of the High Court Ordinance governs appeals in contempt matters from the Lands Tribunal so no leave was required; this Court exercised its power to extend time under Lands Tribunal Rules r30D, heard the appeal on its merits, upheld the Judge’s factual findings that the respondent intentionally retained IO documents and committed contempt beyond reasonable doubt, and held the custodial sentence was not wrong in principle; costs awarded to applicant on indemnity basis at HK$124,000.
12 Feb 2026

滙龍按揭信貸有限公司對馮添華

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 865
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1631/2024

Extension of time was refused because the defendant's alleged new evidence would not meet the Ladd v Marshall requirement that it would have an important influence on the outcome (the stock charges produced related to different loans and the antiques/paintings allegation was a bare assertion without documentary support), and the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable inability to present the evidence earlier; consequently there was no real prospect of success on appeal and the application was dismissed with an interim costs order against the defendant.
11 Feb 2026

MOLLA JIBON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1061/2025

The applicant was deemed to have received the Court's decision; he offered no valid reason for the seven‑week delay and his intended appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; accordingly the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application for extension of time.
21 Jan 2026

KAMANYA SWAIBATI SELEMANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 33
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1770/2020

[2026] HKCFI 33