Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation/time bar

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1821/2020

The application for leave was dismissed: the Form 86 was filed outside the three‑month period and no extension was sought; alternatively, on the merits the TCAB had considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles and its findings were not infected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no reasonably arguable claim meriting leave.
13 Jan 2025

THAPA KHIMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2653/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success, failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements in Form 86 and the affirmation, the proposed challenge was essentially a merits challenge or out of time, and there was no arguable Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's Reconsideration Decision.
13 Nov 2024

文彩玉對詹耀明及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3218
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP508/2023

The strike-out application was dismissed because undisputed evidence established the bill was only first notified to the plaintiff in November 2022 (negating the limitation defence), the solicitors failed to fulfil their obligation to notify the client of accruing costs per professional conduct guidelines, and material credibility and documentary errors by the solicitors meant it was not plain and obvious that the originating summons disclosed no reasonable cause; accordingly the court would not strike out the proceeding.
5 Mar 2024

NG YIU CHI ELEANOR v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1248/2023

The originating summons was struck out as an abuse of process because the challenge to the 1997 allotment and the Restructuring could and should have been raised in the earlier trial which settled those issues; additionally the plaintiff lacked legitimate interest and locus, s.42(4) threshold for removal was not satisfied and any claim for the alleged HK$10,000 consideration belonged to HEL and was time-barred.
13 Apr 2023

MAGAR JAMUNA JARGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL65/2021

Both applications were dismissed/refused because the challenges were either overtaken by events or plainly out of time with no adequate explanation for delay; the Form 86/affirmation failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds; reconsideration does not cure the time bar; and the applicant failed to prosecute after obtaining interim relief, warranting refusal of leave and an award of costs to the Director.
3 Mar 2022

GURDAS S. CHOITHRAMANI v. MAYER BROWN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAYER BROWN JSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 269
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2021

The Court ordered security for costs of HK$350,000 because the appellant is impecunious and the defendants would likely face difficulty and expense enforcing any costs order; the appellant's countervailing arguments, including allegations of fraud and the merits of the appeal, were insufficient to outweigh the reasons for ordering security; accordingly the appeal is stayed until payment and will be dismissed on default.
25 Jun 2021

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. WONG WAI KWONG DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 897
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV150/2020

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion by failing to apply the correct legal principles and facts: the HK$622 million loss was readily ascertainable, causation was established under the fiduciary "but for" test, the liquidators would not practically pursue separate proceedings and supported a compensation order, and therefore the appeal is allowed and a compensation order for HK$622 million plus interest and costs should be made against the 1st to 3rd respondents jointly and severally.
9 Feb 2021

THAPA DINESH BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL457/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decisions, the Board's risk assessment, finding of available state protection and internal relocation were reasonable on the evidence, and parts of the application were out of time with no satisfactory explanation for extension of time.
9 Jan 2019

X V. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI LEIGH & ORGANGE LIMITED

Citation

[2019] HKDC 122
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2016

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi. It held that the claimant's case was not frivolous or malicious nor were there special circumstances justifying an award of costs against her. Section 73B(3) of the District Court Ordinance applies and, having found the respondents had not complied with Order 22 for sanctioned offers and the evidence did not support adverse inferences from EOC withdrawal, the costs order nisi was made absolute so each party bears its own costs.
14 Dec 2018

CHOW KAM HUNG v. NG WAI KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2294/2013

There were no clear and unambiguous admissions in the defendants' pleadings as to the Land being a partnership asset; even if such admissions existed, the court would exercise its discretion to allow the proposed amendments because they were made in good faith, were not a strategic manoeuvre, no trial date was fixed and the balance of prejudice favoured allowing amendment to give effect to the overriding objective; therefore the registrar's decisions allowing amendments were upheld and the appeals dismissed.