Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time bar

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1413
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL199/2022

The Leave Application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation or application for extension, and the intended challenge to the Board's Decision discloses no reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Director's decision was superseded by the Board appeal.
11 Sept 2025

陳家文對地政總署署長 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3962
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1652/2025

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because (a) decisions of land administration relating to squatter huts are not justiciable as established by the Court of Appeal, (b) the application was time‑barred by the three‑month limit, (c) the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantive legal effect from deletion of the registration number, and (d) the grounds did not disclose any arguable case because deletion was an administrative follow‑up to lawful policy.
23 Oct 2024

RE PHAM VAN TUAN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV211/2022

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable ground of error that would justify leave to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb.
17 Oct 2024

韓仁生對鄭信忠又名鄭志宗

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1676
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2266/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the claim accrued by 1 Sep 2014 and was brought after the six-year limitation under Limitation Ordinance s4(1); the purported letters and oral promise were unproven and in any event do not extend the statutory limitation period, making the strike-out and dismissal of the claim correct.
2 Oct 2024

TASMANIA FEEDLOT PTY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ9/2023

The court dismissed the strike out summons because Toll HK had sufficiently pleaded and adduced evidence to infer that Toll Australia acted as its agent and that Toll HK was the undisclosed principal to the OOCL Waybill, thereby possessing locus to sue; the claim was not manifestly without prospect and any factual disputes require trial; consequently there was no plain and obvious abuse of process warranting strike out and indemnity costs were refused.
12 Apr 2024

TRAN THI HIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 292
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV389/2022

The Judge correctly refused extension of time and leave because the application was inordinate and unexplained, the applicant failed to provide any grounds for review, and the Board had validly accepted a voluntary and informed withdrawal of the appeal so there was no arguable basis for judicial review; accordingly the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
8 Mar 2024

莊裕安 v. 特首李家超 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 209
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2023

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without adequate explanation and the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; lack of legal aid does not excuse the delay.
5 May 2023

RE DAR WASIF HUSSAIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 588
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV73/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance, failed to show prospects of success, and the application was filed after the statutory 28-day period, with no adequate explanation or submissions provided.
20 Apr 2023

BALLESTEROS SHIRLEY MAGLALANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1015
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1194/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's findings that the risk was localized, low, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and rational, and the leave application was time-barred and devoid of specified grounds.
12 Apr 2021

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK FAN LAU v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2206/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to exhaust the available statutory appeal under s44(1) of the Buildings Ordinance and the leave application was substantially out of time with no adequate explanation; substantively the incorporated owners remain "owner" for service under s24(2) despite adverse possession and the Building Authority acted reasonably in requiring sufficient evidence before withdrawing the order.