Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal aid delay

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2020

RE MASNAH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP105/2019

Extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any good reason for a five‑month delay beyond the statutory three‑month limit; the proffered reasons (late receipt of decision, ignorance of deadline, awaiting legal aid) were insufficient, and the Board's decision was neither legally flawed nor Wednesbury‑unreasonable, making the intended appeal hopeless.
2 Aug 2019

鄧淑珍對終審法院司法常務官

Citation

[2019] HKCA 875
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV579/2018

The court refused to accept the late filing and refused leave because the applicant failed to show a reasonable excuse for the delay (including that legal aid delay was insufficient), and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of broad public importance or reasonably arguable points under the relevant provisions; the application could be fairly disposed of on the papers, so leave to appeal was refused and no costs order made.
20 Nov 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1069/2017

Leave was refused because the Applicant's complaints were vague and not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator lawfully considered COI, reached conclusions on state protection and internal relocation that were not Wednesbury unreasonable, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case; additionally the Applicant unreasonably delayed applying for legal aid.
27 Jun 2016

AIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LAM CHE WAH

Citation

AIA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LAM CHE WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1107/2016

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the delay was significant, the defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing due diligence in his legal aid application (no verified chronology or evidence from the Legal Aid Department), and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as the grounds were thoroughly considered and rejected by the trial judge; costs were fixed at HKD 20,000.
18 Nov 2015

“AH” v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

“AH” v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL32/2015

There was no good reason to extend time for the out-of-time leave application: the delay (about 19 months) was excessive, the legal aid process did not justify extension overall (though delay in assignment of senior counsel was neutral), and it was highly likely the Director would reject the dependant visa again on known facts (applicant's adverse criminal/dishonesty record and established immigration policy); accordingly extension and leave were refused and no costs order made.
19 Mar 2010

NG CHUN KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

NG CHUN KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP204/2010

Because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success (as concluded by reference to the reasons in CACV 277/2009), the court refused to grant an extension of time despite the short delay caused by late receipt of the legal aid application.
5 Jun 2007

CHAN KWAI HA v. WONG CHICK BUN t/a SANG MING SING MOTORBOAT CO

Citation

CHAN KWAI HA v. WONG CHICK BUN t/a SANG MING SING MOTORBOAT CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ85/2005

Section 7 of the Ordinance applies to non-contact navigational faults; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good reason to extend the statutory two-year limitation; accordingly the claim was time-barred and must be dismissed.
3 Jul 2001

Nip Kwok Wah v. Wing Chong Engineering Co. and Another

Citation

Nip Kwok Wah v. Wing Chong Engineering Co. and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC735/1998

The applicant used up the limitation period then failed to progress the case for approximately two and a half years post-issue; that period was inordinate and, notwithstanding some legitimate activities (medical reviews, legal aid application), the applicant failed to show credible excuses; the delay caused material prejudice by loss/unavailability of key witnesses and impaired ability to have a fair trial; therefore the application is struck out for want of prosecution.
25 Nov 1998

Chan Siu Lun v. Hui Cho Yee and Another

Citation

Chan Siu Lun v. Hui Cho Yee and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/1998

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the matter in dispute was likely to meet the $1,000,000 threshold (claims were unquantified and not shown to be virtually certain to exceed the threshold) and none of the grounds raised a question of great general or public importance justifying discretionary leave under s.22.
12 Mar 1997

R. v. NG WING WAI

Citation

R. v. NG WING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA89/1997

A custodial sentence and prolonged remand for a 14 year old selling pirated CDs was inappropriate in principle; the proper disposal was a non‑custodial probation order of 12 months, and procedural failures (failure to seek bail and delays in legal aid/counsel assignment) compounded the error.