Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of decisions

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2025

VU VAN LAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2225/2023

The court refused to extend time and to reopen/reinstate the withdrawn judicial review because the applicant offered no valid reason to justify setting aside the withdrawal; Order 21 r 3 does not mandate reinstatement and finality principles governing withdrawn non-refoulement appeals and the court's duty to prevent abuse require dismissal of the application.
12 Apr 2024

朱潔對陳嘉信（高等法院原訟法庭法官）及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1060
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL556/2024

The application for leave to bring judicial review was refused because the applicant sought to challenge a final judicial decision — namely the High Court judge's refusal of permission to appeal under s.28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance — which is not susceptible to judicial review; permitting the JR would amount to a prohibited quasi‑appeal and an abuse of process, and the proposed grounds lacked arguable legal basis.
14 Jul 2022

張玉珊 v. 高等法院原訟法庭陳嘉信法官

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2136
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL566/2022

The refusal by a Judge of the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal under section 28 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance is final and not susceptible to judicial review; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
14 Jul 2020

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 22
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2020

A refusal to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review is part and parcel of, and leads to, a refusal of leave; such a refusal falls within RHC O.59 r.21(1)(g) and therefore does not require leave under s.14AA to be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decision in MI to the contrary is overruled in that respect.
4 Apr 2019

鄧淑珍對終審法院司法常務官

Citation

[2019] HKCA 413
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV579/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the registrar's summons under r.7(1) and the Appeal Committee's dismissal under r.7(2), read with s.18(3) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, mark the decision as final and not subject to judicial review; the applicant presented no reasonably arguable case and the application amounted to an abuse of process.
3 Dec 2018

陳銳珍對地政總署署長

Citation

[2018] HKCA 909
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP5/2018

Sections 14AB of the High Court Ordinance and 11AB of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance render refusals of leave final so the Court of Appeal has no power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; the notices of motion were struck out as an abuse of process and costs were awarded against the applicants.
13 Sept 2016

TSUI KIN CHUNG v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSUI KIN CHUNG v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL121/2016

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Registrar's refusal to accept the notice of motion was lawful given statutory provisions precluding a direct appeal to the CFA after refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, the Applicant failed to show illegality, ultra vires or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the Court of Appeal's decision is not subject to judicial review.
7 May 2010

LAM YAU TAK JOSEPH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAM YAU TAK JOSEPH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL112/2009

The court refused both applications for extension of time because the excessive length of delay, the public policy of finality, and the real prejudice and detriment to good administration (including loss of evidence and witnesses and floodgate risk) outweigh the applicants' merits based on the Lam Siu Po decision; a change in the understanding of the law alone did not constitute a good reason to grant the extensions in these circumstances.
7 May 2010

TSUI CHUN FAI DANNY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI CHUN FAI DANNY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2009

Extension of time refused: despite a prima facie arguable case prompted by Lam Siu Po, the extremely long delay, the policy of finality, the limited weight of merits in this context and the substantial risk of prejudice to good administration (missing witnesses, destroyed records, floodgate effect and difficulty of rehearing past disciplinary cases) justified refusal of leave out of time and dismissal of the application.
31 Mar 2010

YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN

Citation

YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1178/2009

The 4 September 2009 decision was final under s14AB High Court Ordinance; therefore the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal was incompetent and must be dismissed; the RAO and restrictions on further applications are justified by the plaintiff's abusive conduct.