Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Out of time appeal

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. CHOY LAP HO, DANIEL

Citation

[2026] HKCA 211
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC111/2025

Leave to appeal out of time was granted because there was a substantial and plainly arguable ground (entitlement to benefit from revised Huang Ruifang (No 3) guidelines) and the difference in sentence was sufficiently significant; applying the revised starting point and appropriate discounts (one‑third guilty plea and 2 months for mitigation) and having regard to the applicant's active role and prior record, the proper sentence is 12 years 4 months, and the sentence of 14 years is reduced accordingly.
20 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. TAN CHIN TENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 179
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC61/2024

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the judge had correctly applied sentencing guidelines: the applicant and co-defendant were properly classified as storekeepers, starting points and a justified enhancement for coming to Hong Kong were correctly applied, and the reductions for cooperation and guilty plea were lawfully calculated; the applicant's comparative disparity complaint lacked factual and legal foundation.
17 Sept 2024

李碧珍對陳湛恩及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1533
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1531/2021

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the first defendant failed to file any affidavit explaining the delay or any written grounds demonstrating a real prospect of success; given the prior rulings striking out his defence and absence of evidence, the statutory/common law factors for extending time were not satisfied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
11 Jun 2021

LITU MIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 821
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP176/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb; the Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
20 May 2020

RE GARILLO RICHARD ORTAL

Citation

[2020] HKCA 347
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP191/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were personal circumstances that did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) and the arguments were unarguable; no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb.
20 Dec 2019

RE ANYIAM PRINCE NNAMAKA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1438
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP180/2018

Leave to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any error in the Court of Appeal judgment, the grounds advanced were new and had not been argued before the Deputy Judge or this court, there was no realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal, and the statutory criteria in section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance were not satisfied.
22 Nov 2019

RE IMBUH KARINA BINTI YAMRONI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP61/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's delay in bringing the appeal was substantial and inexcusable, the intended appeal had no prospect of success, and the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) was not met nor was there a basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
23 Aug 2019

MD MONJU SHEIKH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 962
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP57/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to warrant grant of leave; therefore the application was dismissed.
14 Aug 2019

ISLAM SAIFUL ALIAS RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 909
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP58/2019

The applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking substance and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any other basis under s22(1)(b); there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, so leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
7 Aug 2019

RE AHMED TOSIF

Citation

[2019] HKCA 787
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP196/2018

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the earlier decision refusing leave to appeal out of time is final under s14AB, the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b), raised new points and no arguable grounds or particulars supporting danger or bias were presented, and appellate practice precludes granting leave on new fact‑sensitive points not previously argued.