Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late filing/extension of time

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

郭文英以勤學樂園之名營業對黎嘉年及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 639
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3156/2023

The court refused leave for the two out‑of‑time appeals because the plaintiff provided no reasonable explanation for long unexplained delay and the proposed appeals had no real prospects and would amount to abuse of process; the in‑time appeal against the name correction was dismissed on the merits because the correction was a lawful and necessary procedural amendment and the costs orders were a reasonable exercise of discretion; punitive damages claims were dismissed as re‑litigation after the cause of action had been struck out.
12 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1100/2025

Under the revised s37ZT the Board correctly proceeded on a preliminary paper-based basis, considered only the applicant's written reasons and evidence, and lawfully rejected the reasons because the applicant did not demonstrate he had exercised all due diligence or that delay was due to circumstances beyond his control; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave was properly refused.
16 Sept 2025

ULLAH MIR SAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL366/2020

Leave was granted because the Board committed an error of law by failing to consider the merits of the applicant's appeal as required by section 37ZT(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance; that error made the intended judicial review reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success despite the applicant's generalised pleadings lacking particulars.
3 Apr 2024

TO THI CHAU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1740/2020

The Board and Director properly found the risk to be low, characterized the harm as private monetary disputes, identified availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and reasonably assessed credibility and delay; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown that would give the applicants a real prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and consolidation was appropriate.
1 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1447/2020

The Board lawfully found the 2018 Notice was served via the Duty Lawyer Service, the applicant's five-month delay was serious and unexplained, and on applying the Begum three-stage test (including consideration of the merits and prior final findings) there were no special circumstances to justify extension; the Board's application of law to facts contained no error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, therefore refusal of late filing was lawful and leave for judicial review was refused.
4 Aug 2023

MAMDOUH RABIE MOHAMED SALEH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL257/2023

The application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time (over five years), provided no satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence of special circumstances to justify the delay, failed to discharge statutory duties to return the claim form, and failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision to refuse late filing; accordingly there was no prospect of success.
30 Jun 2023

FADILAH BINTI NASIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL671/2023

The Board lawfully exercised its procedural discretion under s.37ZT: the applicant provided no evidence to substantiate reasons for a six‑year delay, failed to show due diligence or circumstances beyond her control, and had access to duty lawyer assistance when the Director's decision was served; consequently the Board legitimately refused the extension and the court found no realistic prospect of success and refused leave.
5 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1201
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL368/2020

The leave application and request for extension of time were refused because the Board properly applied the statutory tests (including the Beghum three‑stage approach and section 37ZV(3)), the Applicant failed to provide credible reasons or supporting evidence for the late filing, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; therefore no special circumstances justified extending time.
6 Sept 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2752
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL691/2019

Leave was granted because the Board, when refusing to extend time, did not take into account the merits of the Director's decision as required under the pre-amendment approach to s37ZT; the Director's findings were inconsistent with the applicant's evidence and the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on substantive judicial review, warranting leave and remittance for reconsideration under the law applicable at the time of the decision.
25 Aug 2022

NURHAYATI alias NUR HAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2621
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL515/2022

The Board lawfully applied section 37ZT, concluded on the evidence that the applicant had been informed of the decision and the filing deadline, had opportunities to file before arrest, and failed to show due diligence or circumstances beyond her control; therefore the refusal to allow late filing was lawful and the applicant has no realistic prospect of success, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.