Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service and notice

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

HOANG XUAN TRUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL641/2022

The applicant made the leave application more than three years out of time, provided no explanation for the inordinate delay, failed to attend the hearing and thereby forewent opportunity to explain; applying the established factors (length of delay, explanation, merits) there was no good reason to extend time, so extension and leave were refused.
14 May 2026

RE PABILING AILENE CAPILAR

Citation

[2026] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP18/2024

Extension of time refused because the Leave Decision was sent to the applicant's last known address and not returned, no reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness by the Judge or Board, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success in light of the Board's factual credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation.
11 May 2026

田勤先as executor of the estate of 田家庚, deceased 對田珍妮

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2022

Defendant's explanation for non-attendance was not reasonable because the adjourned date was given in open court and no timely prompt was required; two subpoenas were unnecessary as plaintiff agreed to call the witnesses and had applied for subpoenas, the appeal/leave application was out of time and lacked reasonable prospects, and the third subpoena failed because the defendant made no attempt to contact the proposed witness; accordingly the restoration application was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
20 Apr 2026

RE TALA INACIO MARIO

Citation

[2026] HKCA 702
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP41/2025

The Court refused the extension of time because the Leave Decision was served to the applicant's last known address and not returned, the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for the delay or lack of knowledge of the decision, and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness (the Board's adverse factual findings were open on the evidence), rendering the appeal hopeless and not warranting an extension.
20 Apr 2026

RE BATHAGE WATHTHE GEDARA LAXMI PIYARATHNA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 700
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP96/2025

The Court refused the extension of time because the Leave Decision was served to the applicant's last known address and not returned (so notice must be inferred), the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for the delay or when she learned of the decision, and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness given that the Board's adverse credibility and inconsistency findings were open on the evidence; therefore there was no prospect of success and no basis to grant an extension of time.
9 Apr 2026

DE JESUS GINA CASPILLAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1210
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2022

The court accepted the applicant's withdrawal and dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits because the applicant had clearly indicated withdrawal and there was nothing outstanding, relying on Re Manik.
25 Feb 2026

MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2306/2020

Extension refused because, despite the short four‑day delay, the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation; the order and decision had been posted to his last known address and not returned; the applicant filed no grounds for appeal so the intended appeal lacked bona fides; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the summons.
24 Feb 2026

NGUYEN PHU QUYNH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2020

Extension refused because the decisive factor—prospect of success—was lacking: no particularised or arguable grounds were identified showing error by the TCAB; secondary consideration that the applicant failed to keep the court informed of his address reinforced refusal.
4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL64/2021

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and the Director's Decision had been superseded by an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board rendering the Director's Decision not susceptible to judicial review; nothing remains outstanding in the action.
20 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL302/2021

The leave application was refused because it was filed 23 months out of time, the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the substantial delay and failed to attend the hearing to offer explanation; consequently the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and refused leave, while amending the name of the putative respondent on its own motion.