Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to appeal

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

SAFITRI KURNIA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2025

The summons for extension of time is dismissed because the applicant provided unsatisfactory explanations for the delay, had one day available to lodge the appeal, failed to identify any arguable grounds for the intended appeal or judicial review, and therefore did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success which is the crucial requirement for granting an extension.
15 May 2026

張莉對 KO KA YUE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA3/2026

Leave to appeal was granted in part because the applicant demonstrated arguable errors of law or principle in the Tribunal's handling of specific items (items 5,6,8,12) regarding whether the tenant could discharge repair obligations by the least onerous method and in the assessment of repair duration and rent loss (items 14 and 15) including responsibility for rent during key transit; all other factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong and leave was refused for those items; costs to follow the appeal outcome.
15 May 2026

陳壽祥對 CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 971
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP245/2024

The fresh evidence applications were refused because most documents were not genuinely new or lacked independent value and did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall; the new materials could not overturn the trial judge's credibility and factual findings which were supported by evidence; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; applications for stay and admission of fresh evidence denied and costs awarded to respondents.
14 May 2026

RE MOHAMMED ABDUL JALIL

Citation

[2026] HKCA 950
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP270/2023

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant did not identify a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, provided no particulars or reasonably arguable grounds, and breached directions by failing to file written submissions, so there was no basis to grant leave including under the "otherwise" limb.
12 May 2026

KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5985/2024

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Order of 25 October 2024 was a Mareva injunction only, the District Judge correctly applied the Mareva/risk of dissipation test on continuation, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success or that the decision was plainly wrong. An interim continuation of the injunction was granted pending determination of any appeal to the Court of Appeal.
12 May 2026

KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5984/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Order in question was a Mareva injunction (not a proprietary injunction), the judge correctly applied the Mareva risk-of-dissipation test, and the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or that the judge's conclusions were plainly wrong.
12 May 2026

GREAT CITY ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG MAY KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 637
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3406/2023

The 2nd Defendant's proposed grounds of appeal are without reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge correctly found on contemporaneous documents, expert and factual evidence that the plaintiffs had factual possession (enclosure sufficed) and the requisite intention to possess; the proposed challenges merely re‑argue or dispute findings of fact which are not plainly wrong, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
11 May 2026

RE YADAV SHESH NATH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 907
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2025

The Notice of Motion for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to engage with or identify any error in the Court of Appeal's prior judgment and failed to demonstrate any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, rendering the application without merit.
11 May 2026

張惠蘭對中國海外物業服務有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCA 913
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP97/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no real prospect of success: the costs order on restoration was not unreasonable or legally wrong; the applicant was warned of the mandatory attendance at the case management conference, her adjournment request was not granted, and therefore the costs consequence was properly imposed; accordingly there is no basis to overturn the decision or grant leave.
8 May 2026

LUU NGOC QUYET v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2889/2025

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because there was a significant delay (over three months) with an unsatisfactory explanation, no identified or arguable grounds of appeal and therefore no merit to the intended appeal, so the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.