Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural delay

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2759
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL736/2022

Extension of time to file the leave application and the leave application itself were refused because the application was over four years late, the applicant provided no explanation, failed to attend the scheduled hearing, and established legal principles and authorities required refusal of extension and leave.
8 May 2026

ALI ZUALFIQAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1265/2020

Short unexplained delay (approx. 1.5 months) combined with the absence of any grounds and the lack of any realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal (the Court had already found the challenge not reasonably arguable) justified refusal to extend time; the untranslated document was not admitted for lack of relevance, explanation or translation.
6 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1453/2025

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the application was filed 165 days late, the applicant raised no specific grounds, and the Board's findings that the fear was not well-founded and state protection was available meant the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
29 Apr 2026

KHAN MANZAR ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1531/2020

Refusal to extend time because applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the c.13-day delay given a confirmed address and undelivered mail not returned, and because the intended appeal had no prospect of success as there were no arguable errors of law or failures to take into account relevant matters; granting an extension would needlessly prejudice the respondent.
29 Apr 2026

ANWAR TARIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1400/2020

The application for an extension of time was refused because the short delay was insufficiently explained, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the court's prior conclusion that there were no arguable public law grounds to vitiate the Director's or TCAB's decisions; granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial to respondents.
27 Apr 2026

NAWAZ MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1341/2020

The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant was over three months late, provided no reasonable explanation or evidence for delayed receipt of properly served court documents, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial to the respondent.
24 Apr 2026

UMAIR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2131
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL537/2021

Although the delay was short, the applicant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and, critically, there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal; therefore an extension of time to appeal was refused.
15 Apr 2026

DINH THI TIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2149/2020

Applicant failed to provide a coherent or reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; therefore, extension of time to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

NGO QUANG CHIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2310/2020

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was over two months late, offered no valid explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility finding and the Court's prior determination that there was no realistic prospect of success.
9 Mar 2026

KAMAL HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 370
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP16/2025

Applicant was 17 days late, offered no excuse for the delay, and failed to show any real prospect of success on the merits of the intended judicial review; therefore extension of time to appeal was properly refused and the summons dismissed.