Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prospect of appeal

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

WAHYU AJI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was three days late, provided no explanation for the delay, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board found the non-refoulement claim unsubstantiated and the Court had already dismissed leave, and there was no basis to exercise discretion to extend time.
6 Mar 2026

KARRE SRINIVAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 882
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1668/2020

Extension refused because applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal or any error in the impugned decision; absent any prospect of success, it is pointless to extend time despite a short delay and asserted medical issues.
11 Feb 2026

MOLLA JIBON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1061/2025

The applicant was deemed to have received the Court's decision; he offered no valid reason for the seven‑week delay and his intended appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; accordingly the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application for extension of time.
13 Nov 2025

AARON SMITH CHINONSO JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1360/2020

The application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify grounds of appeal, raised a new unpleaded family ground without evidence, and the legal principle that a child's right of abode does not entitle a parent to remain applies; therefore no extension of time should be granted.
3 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4412
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL129/2020

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to explain the delay despite exhibiting the court's letter (implying receipt), provided no evidence of late receipt, and advanced no grounds or arguable errors in the decision such that there was no prospect of success; accordingly it was pointless to extend time.
18 Sept 2025

RASHID ZAFAR GHORI alias RASHID ZAFAR alias GHORI RASHID ZAFAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1472/2024

Refusal to extend time: 16-day delay was significant; detention did not justify the delay given available institutional assistance; applicant failed to file draft grounds or identify any error in the decision; there was no reasonable prospect of success; extension would be futile. Summons dismissed and leave to appeal out of time refused.
1 Aug 2025

TRAN VAN CANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2548/2024

Extension of time refused because, although the delay (12 of 14 days) was not substantial, the applicant's explanation was merely a personal misapprehension about his circumstances in Vietnam and did not disclose any error of law or fact or an arguable ground of appeal, whereas the withdrawal order was correctly found to be informed, voluntary and valid.
1 Aug 2025

DOAN THI HA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1030/2019

Extension of time refused because the delay (one year, nine months and 25 days) was very substantial and caused by the applicants' failure to update the court with their contact/address details; coupled with no arguable grounds of appeal or realistic prospect of success given the Board's factual findings and the absence of identified legal error, the application was an abuse of process and must be dismissed.
17 Jul 2025

RE MUHAMMAD ASEM ALI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 658
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP186/2024

The extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was over two months late, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness such that the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success, and the decision had been sent to his last known address and not returned undelivered, making extension futile.
15 May 2025

RE BUI VAN NAM

Citation

[2025] HKCA 449
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP160/2024

The applicant had voluntarily withdrawn his leave application before the Judge leaving nothing outstanding; he filed the extension application over one month late without explanation and demonstrated no prospect of success on appeal; accordingly an extension of time would be futile and is refused, applying Re Manik and Re Ngo.