Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of documents

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL432/2022

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; the Board had lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence and COI, properly concluded that the incidents did not meet the severity threshold, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
1 Apr 2026

MOHAMMED NASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 568
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP72/2025

The delay in seeking appeal was substantial and inexcusable because the applicant failed to notify change of address; accordingly he must demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits and he failed to do so because the Board had addressed the relevant grounds and the applicant produced no evidence to refute the Board's findings; therefore extension of time to appeal is refused and the summons dismissed.
26 Mar 2026

CHIANG CHI HANG v. JIANG RONGHUA

Citation

[2026] HKDC 586
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1301/2021

On the evidence the court found the Refund Agreement existed (defendant undertook to refund 100 ETH in ETH and compensate loss of interest if ICO/Listing failed); plaintiff proved transfer of 100 ETH and that defendant only refunded 44,000 USDT; the USB audio and transcripts were admissible and corroborative; defendant breached the agreement; plaintiff elected common law damages and was awarded compensatory damages based on market value of ETH and assessed lost interest, totalling US$252,397.33; counterclaim dismissed.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2296
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1385/2020

Extension of time was refused because the 9-day delay was not lengthy, service of the Decision was regular and not returned undelivered, the delay resulted from the applicant's failure to update his address despite reporting obligations (thus no good reason), and the applicant put forward no grounds so there was no prospect of success; the court therefore declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.
24 Mar 2026

香港特別行政區訴李剛奕

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2096
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA484/2024

The court refused to grant a certificate under Cap.484 s32(2) because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal point of great and general importance; his complaints were factual or re‑litigation of sentencing grounds already dealt with on appeal and did not raise novel or general legal questions.
5 Mar 2026

廖芷彤對太興環球發展有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCA 360
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP113/2024

The court refused relief from sanction because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for non‑compliance with the unless order and for the nine‑day delay, failed to take responsibility for service address, had constructive knowledge of the court directions via file check, and because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success (PRC laws inapplicable, employer negligence not established on foreseeability, and a late 'transfer' argument was properly excluded); accordingly the application was dismissed and costs awarded.
5 Feb 2026

RE LONG ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW386/2025

The Company demonstrated a bona fide defence because the documents relied upon did not constitute valid section 43D notices and there were no Labour Tribunal awards or orders to engage s43C/s43F; the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient particulars in the petition after the Company had disputed the statutory demand; accordingly the Petitioner could not prove the Debt and the winding-up petition was dismissed with costs to the Company on an indemnity basis with a certificate for counsel.
27 Jan 2026

NGUYEN MINH CHIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL660/2020

Refuse extension of time and dismiss summons because applicant failed to provide a valid reason for delay (did not update address), the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given no error of law or arguable public law ground after application of enhanced Wednesbury scrutiny, and granting an extension would prejudice the respondent.
5 Dec 2025

RE MALLA SURAJ

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1067
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV222/2024

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and advanced only vague, unsupported and fact‑specific allegations including unproven non‑receipt of notice; the Court therefore had no basis under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
27 Nov 2025

EZIOKWU CHRISTIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL463/2020

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's delay (over a month) lacked a satisfactory explanation, service to the address he had confirmed at hearing was regular with no returned mail, and the intended appeal lacked prospects of success; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.