Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation and extension of time

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2026

RAHMAN MOHAMMAD MEJANUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL145/2022

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed seven days out of time without any application for or explanation justifying extension of time, and the substantive challenge was not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's detailed and lawful findings on credibility, COI, police capacity, failure to seek police assistance and availability of internal relocation; therefore no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
13 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL352/2022

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time with no application for extension or explanation for delay, and the proposed challenge to the Board's decision lacked any reasonably arguable grounds or realistic prospect of success; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
13 Feb 2026

NGUYEN THI THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL890/2021

The Board's findings that the applicant was not credible and that internal relocation was reasonably viable are findings of fact for which no reviewable public law error was shown; the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground in Form 86 and to make full disclosure; the application was over two years out of time with no adequate explanation, and therefore the court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application.
25 Nov 2025

SAENTHAWI RATSAMI alias SAENTHAWI NUANNIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5703
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL352/2023

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation and had no realistic prospects of success; the Board's Decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
3 Nov 2025

KIEU DINH THUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4792
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL888/2020

Leave was refused because the application was substantially out of time with no explanation or request for extension, the applicant failed to establish the statutory conditions for re-opening under s37ZG, there were no arguable public law errors in the Board's decision, and there was no good reason to extend time.
19 Aug 2025

HOSSAIN AJMET alias AJMET HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1965/2020

The Director's decision dated 17 May 2018 is not susceptible to judicial review because the Board's decision supersedes it; the applicant validly withdrew his appeal to the Board and the withdrawal rendered the appeal withdrawn under s.37ZTA(2) Cap 115; the leave application was filed more than 15 months late without explanation or application for extension and the intended judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success; accordingly leave is dismissed and the applicant's request to withdraw the leave application is refused.
13 Aug 2025

DO THI LUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1526/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed approximately 27 months out of time with no explanation for the delay and no application for an extension; the applicant's unexplained absences (at the Board hearing and at this hearing) supported the Board's adverse credibility findings, and there were no reasonably arguable grounds of error in the Board's decision to justify granting leave or extending time.
12 Aug 2025

ZAB SHAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL590/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no explanation and the delay was substantial, and on the merits the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the applicant lacked a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
4 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2211
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL472/2020

The Leave Application is dismissed because the applicant failed to specify arguable grounds of public law error, the Board's decision involved factual findings that did not reveal legal error or procedural unfairness, and the application was filed out of time with an unconvincing explanation and negligible prospects of success, so extension of time was refused.
21 Nov 2023

APLONIA AKOIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1233
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the application was over 10 months out of time without any satisfactory explanation, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection or internal relocation was available were matters within the Board's primary domain not susceptible to judicial review in the absence of legal error.