Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL345/2023

The court accepted the applicant's sworn affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, that she understood the Board's decision would remain in force and that she wished to return home; on that basis the court allowed the withdrawal and granted leave to withdraw the leave application.
16 Aug 2012

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2010

The summons seeking to defer or remove the 2nd Condition was dismissed because the defendant had failed to comply with the prior order such that reinstatement was granted only on specified conditions; re-opening the decided matter would be an abuse of process and finality requires compliance; a limited one‑month extension to 15 September 2012 was granted for compliance with the 2nd Condition; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HK$8,000.
7 May 2010

LI KIN WAH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LI KIN WAH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL126/2009

Although the applicants had prima facie arguable challenges based on the Court of Final Appeal decision in Lam Siu Po, the applications for leave out of time were refused because the public policy of finality, the excessive length of delay, the limited weight to be given to merits in extension applications, and the substantial prejudice and detriment to good administration (including floodgate and practical rehearing difficulties) together did not constitute good reason to extend time.
7 May 2010

YIU SUNG CHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

YIU SUNG CHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL101/2009

The court refused extension of time because the delays were excessive, the public policy of finality applied with full force to police disciplinary decisions, granting leave would cause substantial prejudice and administrative detriment (lost records, unavailable witnesses, floodgate risk), and a subsequent change in law alone (Lam Siu Po) and arguable merits did not constitute sufficient exceptional circumstances to override finality.
7 May 2010

YUNG KAM CHEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

YUNG KAM CHEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL6/2010

Applications for leave to apply for judicial review out of time were refused because a mere change in the understanding of law (Lam Siu Po) did not constitute good reason to extend time absent exceptional circumstances; the public policy of finality, long unexplained delay, the risk of prejudice and detriment to good administration and limited weight accorded to merits together justified refusal of extensions.
26 Feb 2010

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL50/2009

The court held the challenge to Order 53 r4 under s6(1) BOR was not reasonably arguable and dismissed it; the applicant was out of time to seek leave to apply for judicial review of the 1997 and 1998 disciplinary decisions and no good reason or exceptional circumstance justified an extension of time; the Commissioner's refusal to revisit historic disciplinary decisions is not a reviewable decision; accordingly leave was refused, extension of time denied, and the substantive challenge dismissed.
28 Oct 2005

WONG YUK FUNG v. WOO CHOR WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG YUK FUNG v. WOO CHOR WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because section 22(1)(a) was not engaged (no final judgment) and section 22(1)(b) was not satisfied (no question of great general or public importance); additionally the applicant's delay, prejudice to the 2nd defendant and lack of merit warranted dismissal of the application.
4 May 1999

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV45/1999

The leave applications were refused because the contested case management and interim rulings were interlocutory and did not constitute final decisions under s.22(1)(a), they did not involve points of general or public importance under s.22(1)(b), and no other entitlement or sufficient reasons for granting leave under s.22(1)(b) were shown; accordingly all applications were dismissed with costs.