Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Functus officio

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 296
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP116/2024

Applicant delayed more than the permitted period and provided an insufficient, unparticularised explanation and no supporting evidence; he therefore failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success or good cause to re-open the leave application, so the Court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the summons.
13 Feb 2026

GURDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 194
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV958/2025

Applicant did not challenge the validity of his withdrawal or identify any viable legal or procedural ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; new oral facts raised on appeal could not be considered because the appeal is confined to the evidence before the Board and the Judge; therefore there was no basis to disturb the Judge's decision and the appeal was dismissed.
2 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1143/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the statutory scheme and binding Court of Appeal authority establish that a valid written notice of withdrawal disposes the appeal and renders the Board functus officio, eliminating any arguable basis for judicial review of the Board's decision; the applicant's remedy is to commence a fresh non-refoulement claim under the statute.
21 Nov 2025

YEUNG LAI PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI833/2002

Despite finding that the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects due to conflicting authority, the court refused to extend time because the delay (5 months 22 days) was substantial, the plaintiff failed to provide compelling justification linking her long‑standing psychiatric condition to the delay, and there was no satisfactory explanation why she, with long‑term competent representation, did not obtain or follow advice to appeal; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave out of time and treated the interest award as a final perfected order (functus officio).
14 Nov 2025

陳清秀對蔡源

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1894
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3275/2023

The permission to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to prove the value of the claimed loss, did not make a proper disclosure application and did not demonstrate that CCTV would produce decisive evidence; the 14 August 2025 Order 58 summons was incorrectly brought and revoked; the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2), and the adjournment was refused.
6 Nov 2025

SHERPA RENJAL v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL855/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB/NRCPO properly dismissed the appeal following a valid voluntary Withdrawal Letter making the Board functus officio, the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error, and the application was filed over four years out of time with no good reason to extend time.
5 Nov 2025

TSANG CHI SHING RAYMOND v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA35/2024

The application to re-open was dismissed because the judge did not overlook the fourth ground (contemporaneous messages supported the finding that the 2nd Defendant was the employer), the failure to draw up the order was the 2nd Defendant's responsibility and cannot justify re-opening absent exceptional circumstances, and the high threshold to disturb Labour Tribunal factual findings was not met.
31 Oct 2025

RANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1994/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed substantially out of time without explanation and lacked merits: the applicant validly, deliberately and informedly withdrew his appeal at the Board hearing, the Board's confirmation of the Director's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and no extension of time was justified.
30 Oct 2025

HON KWOK WAI, the administrator of the Estate of LAI SHU KUEN, deceased v. HON MAN WAI ANGELA, the administrator of the Estate of LAI SHU KUEN, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1916/2022

The court clarified that the Costs Order was made on the basis of the submissions before it and without invoking or exercising the court's powers under s17 of the Legal Aid Ordinance; the Legal Aid regime had not been raised to the court and therefore the Costs Order cannot be treated as an exercise of s17 powers. The Clarification Summons resulted in no order as to costs.
16 Oct 2025

SANGAIYAN RAMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2259/2020

Leave was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the applicant had applied to withdraw his appeal, did not dispute the factual basis, and under s 37ZTA and the Court of Appeal authority in Re Das the withdrawal validly disposed of the appeal, leaving the Board functus officio and no merits‑based remedy other than instituting a fresh non‑refoulement claim under s 37ZO(2).