Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prospects of success test

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2025

SANDHU JATINDER SINGH v. MA SHIU MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1205
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2647/2022

The court exercised its discretion to refuse an extension of time because the plaintiff's reasons for delay were not accepted and because the plaintiff demonstrated no real prospect of success on appeal (the $9,000 property damage argument had been considered and rejected); accordingly leave to appeal out of time was dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff, summarily assessed at $5,000.
22 Aug 2023

YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 986
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP293/2022

The Court refused the application for extension of time because R3's reasons for delay were unsatisfactory and he failed to demonstrate real prospects of success on the proposed grounds of appeal; the Judge's findings that the injured person was an employee engaged for the purposes of R3/R4's business and that R3 was liable on the facts were open to the Judge and not realistically challengeable on appeal, and therefore extension was not warranted.
19 Oct 2022

RE FAROOQ MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1540
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP139/2022

Extension of time was refused because, although the delay was short, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Leave Decision and the Board's findings on credibility and internal relocation were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so granting extension would be futile.
22 Dec 2021

奈良有限公司對 LAW YIU FAI

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1491
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3839/2020

The application for leave to file an out‑of‑time appeal was dismissed because the applicant offered no acceptable explanation for the delay in his sworn evidence, advanced new grounds for the first time in court, and the proposed appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; the registrar's costs order was not unreasonable or legally flawed and therefore was not interfered with.
19 Nov 2021

WONG YUK TUNG v. WONG PO LING (also known as WONG PO LING CLARA) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1720
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP167/2021

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate any real prospects of success on the intended appeal and did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484); issues concerning the 2016 judgment were not properly before the application and the application is therefore dismissed with costs.
10 Sept 2021

ZAKI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP20/2021

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant offered only bare assertions without particulars or new evidence, failed to rebut the Board's detailed findings, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; absence of prospect of success is a decisive factor when considering extension of time in these circumstances.
8 Jul 2021

RE JAGSEER SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1833/2018

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or identify errors in the Board's decision, which had lawfully concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available.
26 Jun 2020

RE CHETRY GOKUL

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL732/2017

The applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal and provided no satisfactory excuse for delay; accordingly the application for extension of time and for leave to advance new grounds of appeal is dismissed.
23 May 2016

CEI CONRAD ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MAHIR EMRAH KARAKOC

Citation

CEI CONRAD ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MAHIR EMRAH KARAKOC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA995/2016

The court found paragraph 8 (non‑compete) too wide and lacking necessary definition and was not satisfied on the balance that plaintiff was more likely than not to succeed at trial, so injunction under paragraph 8 was refused; paragraph 9 (confidentiality) was valid, raised a serious question and was likely to be enforceable, and an interim injunction restraining disclosure/use of specified confidential information until 31 August 2016 was ordered as the appropriate, proportionate protection.
5 Nov 2010

REGENT LAND ASIA LTD v. LEE CHAU HUNG, EVA AND OTHERS

Citation

REGENT LAND ASIA LTD v. LEE CHAU HUNG, EVA AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4460/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge correctly found credible evidence that the plaintiff could not meet defendants' costs, properly exercised the discretionary balancing exercise considering prospects of success, lack of evidence that the claim would be stifled by security, weakness of the conspiracy claim against the 2nd defendant, and no other interest of justice to hear the appeal; the asserted factual and authority-based errors did not give rise to a reasonable prospect of overturning that exercise of discretion.