Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late filing

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

RASOOL GHULAM v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1354/2020

Leave was refused because the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; the NRCPO's refusal of late filing displayed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and remittal would be futile because there was no realistic prospect of a different outcome given prior findings rejecting the substantive non-refoulement claims.
10 Apr 2026

CHOI LAM FAT LUKE v. CHOI SAU YING JENNY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2306
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP161/2025

Leave was granted because the 2nd Defendant's affirmation legitimately answered new matters in the Plaintiff's reply and updated material events (sale of Hong Pak Court); the Plaintiff had prior sight of a draft and did not demonstrate specific prejudice from the late filing; moreover, the factual disputes about source of funds may require cross-examination and rescheduling regardless, so refusal was not justified. Costs were ordered against the Defendants.
31 Mar 2026

王欽賢對高景波

Citation

[2026] HKDC 572
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1408/2023

The court applied Order 62 r28(4A) and the authorities on indemnity‑basis assessments, admitted the late‑filed defendant statement as delay was minor, found the defendant offered no substantive objections to the claimed items, made only modest reductions for non‑complex aspects of the late appeal, and held the plaintiff's claimed costs were not unreasonable or unreasonably incurred; therefore costs were summarily assessed at HK$59,559 payable immediately by the defendant.
17 Dec 2025

GAZI SADDAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6167
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2102/2020

The Board lawfully refused to allow the 90-day late filing because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the whole period of delay and breached the statutory duty to notify change of address under s37ZA(2); the Board properly considered the merits for special circumstances under s37ZT and concluded none existed; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
18 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4217
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1607/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB applied the correct legal principles, considered the evidence and reasonably concluded there were no special circumstances or sufficient merits to justify allowing the late filing, so there is no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
21 Aug 2025

BANSAL MANOJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3665
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL601/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the grounds were generic, vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director's decision was generally not susceptible to review once the applicant pursued an appeal to the TCAB/NRCPO; the TCAB/NRCPO correctly applied the statutory test (Begum) and ss.37ZS/37ZT to refuse late filing; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; and the applicant's new evidence did not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria.
24 Jul 2025

ASHWANI KUMAR v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1056/2020

The court held that the NRCPO lawfully and properly exercised its discretion under the Petition Guide and section 37ZT to refuse late filing because there were no special circumstances, the applicant provided no new facts to alter the BOR2 assessment, and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
23 Dec 2024

劉婉莉對 PURE INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2141
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC18/2022

The application was dismissed because it was filed in the wrong forum (should be made to the Court of Appeal), the 15-day delay was not satisfactorily explained by the medical evidence which did not account for earlier non-attendance, the proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success, and granting the extension would prejudice the respondent; costs were awarded to the respondent.
15 Jan 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCA 4
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV312/2023

The Board lawfully exercised its statutory power to refuse late filing after finding the applicant had a long unexplained delay and had not exercised due diligence; the Deputy High Court Judge correctly applied the statutory scheme and Wednesbury standard, found no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal accordingly.
9 Jan 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 30
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1919/2023

The Appeal Board lawfully applied amended s37ZT and, on the written statement and evidence before it, reasonably concluded the applicant failed to show he had exercised all due diligence or that circumstances beyond his control prevented timely filing; that conclusion was open to the Board and the court will not interfere absent a public law error, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.