Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of judgment

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

RE SANJAY SARKAR

Citation

[2026] HKCA 952
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP18/2025

The extension of time was refused because the Leave Decision was sent to the applicant's last known address and not returned undelivered (so he had notice or should have updated his address), the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay including delay in renewing the application, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness was identified in the judge's or the Board's factual conclusions on risk and internal relocation.
6 May 2026

RE DINH THI CHUYEN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 909
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP299/2023

The applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in appealing and failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Judge's consideration of the Board's factual findings; service to the last known address gave rise to notice, and there was no prospect of success on the intended appeal, so no extension of time should be granted.
11 Nov 2025

AHAMED HASIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5275
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2020

Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite a correct address and receipt of other court correspondence, and failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success on the intended judicial review; therefore no extension of time to appeal was granted.
16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3827
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL830/2019

Applying the AW factors, the court refused an extension because the delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant had no credible basis to challenge the Board's adverse findings or the Judgment, service was properly effected and deemed received, and the intended appeal lacked realistic prospect of success; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
12 Aug 2025

DINH THI THANH HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3218
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1980/2024

Extension of time refused because the applicant delayed over two and a half months, failed to establish non-receipt of the Judgment sent to her last known address, and the intended appeal lacked a realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; applying the AW factors and relevant authorities, refusal was appropriate.
15 May 2025

BATHAGE WATHTHE GEDARA LAXMI PIYARATHNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2030/2024

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant was 43 days late, provided no valid explanation for the delay (failure to receive the judgment and lack of legal advice were insufficient), and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; consequently, extension of time would not be granted.
8 May 2025

RE ABDUL WAHAB

Citation

[2025] HKCA 409
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP217/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the Leave Decision had been sent to the applicant's last known address, the applicant was one month late, and there was no realistic prospect of success since the Board validly accepted the applicant's informed withdrawal and no public law error was identified, making any extension futile.
30 Apr 2025

RE MD SERAJUL MUNIR alias MUNIR ABMS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP142/2024

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was approximately four months out of time, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, the decision had been sent to his last known address, and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore had no prospect of success.
19 Aug 2024

ENDAH SRI HANDAYANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 758
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV271/2023

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because it was filed out of time, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay or non-receipt of the Judgment sent to her current address, and she failed to identify any question of great general or public importance (or any basis under the alternative limb) as required by s22(1)(b) of the Ordinance; accordingly leave to appeal was not justified and the extension of time did not arise for determination.
31 May 2024

LORIA FLORDELIZA TAYABAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL846/2021

Applicant was approximately two months late, the Board had disbelieved her evidence about fear from a creditor over an alleged loan of 300,000 PHP and there was no cogent challenge to the Board's credibility findings; applying the AW factors there was no realistic prospect of success, therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed. The court also concluded the applicant was deemed to have received the decision after attempted service and address checks.