Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of time

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN SZE CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC171/2023

Leave to appeal was granted on (a) whether a genuine but mistaken belief direction was required and (b) admissibility of the Sad Toefl exchange, because both were reasonably arguable; all other grounds against conviction and the appeal against sentence were refused as not reasonably arguable or lacking merit; the sentence of 8 years was not manifestly excessive and the judge’s factual findings were supportable.
15 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. LAM SIU FUNG, ANDY

Citation

[2025] HKCA 826
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2022

The Court refused the extension of time and dismissed the renewal application, leave to appeal and the appeal because the purported renewal was out of time, sought to introduce new grounds distinct from the Refused Perfected Ground, and those New Grounds were without merit on the evidence and law; the trial judge's directions, including on genuine but mistaken belief, were correct and the contested evidence was properly admitted or was within admitted facts.
18 Oct 2021

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1529
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC131/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeals were without substance, applicants failed to file grounds or abandon their applications, and the sentencing judge correctly applied starting points, aggravating factor enhancements, guilty plea discounts and the totality principle; accordingly the court exercised its s83W power to order that four weeks of custody not be reckoned as part of each applicant's sentence.
13 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. KOFI FRIMPONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1166
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC137/2020

The Single Judge accepted that the applicant had abandoned his application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal; although the circumstances involved last‑minute abandonment and caused wasted resources, the Judge exercised discretion not to make a loss of time order in this case while issuing a clear warning that similar conduct risks such an order in future.
10 Nov 2016

HKSAR v. WONG LIN HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG LIN HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2016

The Court held that s 83W(1) includes applicants for an extension of time to give notice of application for leave to appeal because the statutory context, purpose (deterrence of unmeritorious applications), the Criminal Appeal Rules and Form XI, and relevant precedent support treating such applications as part of the appeal process; accordingly the Court of Appeal has power under s 83W(1) to make loss of time orders in those circumstances.
5 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU KUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC300/2013

The court denied the application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time and dismissed the renewed application against sentence because the applicant offered no substantial or bona fide reason for the delay, his denial contradicted his unequivocal guilty plea and the evidence established joint enterprise; the sentence was within the applicable tariff and properly imposed; the court ordered that 2 months of custody pending determination shall not count towards his sentence (loss of time).
27 May 2014

HKSAR v. TSOGBADRAKH OTGON

Citation

HKSAR v. TSOGBADRAKH OTGON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC393/2013

The Court refused extension of time because the applicant gave no substantial explanation for the 3.5 month delay and the proposed grounds lacked merit; the evidence (attendance at the booth, stolen items found in the applicant's suitcase, corroborating immigration and telephone records) supported convictions on joint-enterprise and for handling stolen goods; the sentences were within acceptable range and not manifestly excessive; and a loss of time of four weeks was ordered due to unmeritorious repeated applications and wasted judicial time.
13 Jan 2014

HKSAR v. KAMARULZAMAN BIN ANNUAR

Citation

HKSAR v. KAMARULZAMAN BIN ANNUAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC38/2013

The Court refused to admit the late medical report because it would not afford a ground of appeal under s83V; it upheld the sentencing judge's starting points and concurrent structure as proportionate given the large quantities, enormous face value, international dimension and potential for substantial loss, and therefore found the total 3 year sentence not manifestly excessive; the Court ordered a loss of time of four weeks under s83W because the applicant's application was totally unmeritorious and had wasted judicial time.
22 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. HUI MAN TAI

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI MAN TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC334/2007

The trial judge’s inference that the applicant and co-accused were present at and participated in the entire series of staged collisions was properly supported by the totality of witness testimony, settlement notes and the spreadsheet showing shared proceeds; the conviction and 30-month sentence were therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
18 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE HING CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC287/2005

The single judge dismissed the applicants' applications because the convictions and sentences were supported by overwhelming evidence (confession, fingerprints, undercover observations) and sentencing was appropriate; D3's leave application was frivolous and warranted an order that two months of her pre-hearing custody not be reckoned as part of her sentence.