Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

MANANGAN IRENE MANGLICMOT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1687/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay (one year and ten days against a 14-day appeal period) was very inordinate, the applicant offered no adequate reason for the delay, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as it repeated factual complaints that are not reviewable absent error of law; granting an extension would cause prejudice and constitute abuse of process.
10 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL315/2022

Refusal to extend time and refusal of leave was justified because the application was filed approximately 1.5 months late with no explanation, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success, and the Board's decision contained adequate reasons with no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
3 Oct 2025

ILYAS JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL144/2020

Extension refused because applicant failed to explain timing of receipt of the decision, failed to advance or plead any proposed grounds showing a real prospect of success, and the delay was not satisfactorily justified; accordingly it was pointless to extend time for appeal.
25 Sept 2025

香港特別行政區訴汪洋

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1454
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC1025/2024

The court found a sufficient nexus among the three laundering charges—common nature, overlapping time periods, same account operator, typical laundering features and relevant sequence that bears on mens rea—and concluded consolidation would not cause unfair prejudice because each count will be considered separately; efficiency and overlapping evidence justify consolidation under Cap.221 s18(1) and Cap.221C r7.
25 Apr 2025

世紀亞洲發展投資有限公司對陳孝敏及另三人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 655
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2516/2022

Refusal of the out‑of‑time leave to appeal because the applicant had an excessive unexplained delay, failed to provide credible supporting evidence or to pinpoint errors in the judgment, thereby lacking a real prospect of success, and because granting an extension would prejudice the plaintiff.
21 Mar 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD father of POOSAALA RAJA RAM v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1575/2016

Short delay with no adequate explanation and proposed grounds showing no real prospect of success justified refusal to extend time; granting extension would cause prejudice to the Defendant and to the administration of justice, therefore the application was dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
30 Oct 2024

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The court granted leave to amend because the delay alone, without evidence of real prejudice, did not justify refusal; the trial being over 18 months away meant parties had time to prepare, the defendants failed to show the undue influence claim was bound to fail as a matter of law, and procedural safeguards and directions (including limits on cross-examination time and consequential directions) were imposed to manage any prejudice.
3 Sept 2024

AD (also known as AT) v. RT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2022

The application was dismissed because the witness failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the general rule of in‑court testimony; the witness's evidence is crucial and credibility will be heavily disputed, and permitting VCF would risk prejudice to the respondent in cross-examination and undermine the solemnity and effectiveness of the trial, so the court exercised its discretion to refuse VCF and ordered costs nisi against the petitioner.
22 Mar 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 482
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Adjournment refused because the plaintiff's late engagement of new solicitors and late application did not justify delaying the scheduled hearing; change of legal team is not sufficient reason absent exceptional circumstances, and the defendant would be prejudiced by delay to its discovery application; plaintiff had adequate prior opportunity and professional papers and could apply later for amendments if necessary; costs awarded to defendant.
24 Oct 2023

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2730
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/2018

Leave to file the 4th supplemental witness statement was refused because the application was unduly late, the defendant failed to justify the delay, the matters relied on had been previously disclosed or could have been produced earlier, there was a history of late applications and prior dismissal indicating tactical delay, and granting leave would cause real prejudice to the plaintiff's trial preparation (including disruption from late expert evidence).