Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

AZEEM NASIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2009
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1511/2020

Given the extensive unexplained delay and lack of good reason, the court refused to accept the applicant's reasons but granted a final 14‑day opportunity to issue the originating summons and imposed an unless order that the application will be dismissed if the summons is not filed within 14 days; the application may be decided on paper under the Rules.
8 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 99
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2467/2020

The court amended Form 86 to name the correct putative respondent and interested party; because the applicant confirmed withdrawal after obtaining residence and the application was out of time with nothing outstanding, the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to the cited precedent and governing practice.
7 Nov 2025

NGUYEN HUU HOA v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1612/2020

The TCAB lawfully accepted the applicant's unequivocal and informed withdrawal of his non-refoulement claim; the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision and the leave application was out of time with no satisfactory explanation for delay, therefore leave is refused and no extension of time is granted.
30 Apr 2025

RE ZAHIDUL ISLAM

Citation

[2025] HKCA 373
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP315/2023

Refusal to grant extension of time was correct because the applicant delayed six months without any explanation, failed to advance any arguable ground for appeal or demonstrate realistic prospects of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's or Judge's decisions, making any extension futile.
18 Nov 2024

GHAFOOR ZOHAIB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3296
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1409/2024

Extension of time was refused because, although the delay was modest (12 days), the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit: it sought effectively to reargue the merits of an immigration refusal that was substantially out of time and did not identify arguable public law errors sufficient to justify extending time.
17 Apr 2024

SRI-RAHAYU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 314
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap 484 or that the intended appeal had reasonable prospects of success; being out of time was noted but the dispositive reasons were lack of importance and prospects.
23 Jan 2024

王寬裕 v. 高等法院原訟法庭法官楊家雄

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2347/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the challenged decision of Keith Yeung J was not amenable to judicial review, the applicant had an alternative remedy by appeal, the application did not raise reasonably arguable grounds with a real prospect of success, and therefore leave was refused.
8 Dec 2023

UBONGEN LEANNE PALMA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL818/2022

Short delay (7 days) did not justify extension because applicants provided no adequate explanation for delay, their stated reasons (need to raise money and ignorance of time limit) were unsatisfactory, and they failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's factual findings such that the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.
24 Nov 2023

RE ESTACIO RECHIE LACNO

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1288
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to show any prospects of success, and the application was also made out of time.
10 Oct 2023

RE RAI RANJANA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1134
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP60/2022

The Court refused to extend time and dismissed the Notice of Motion because the applicant was nearly six weeks late with no explanation, failed to file submissions as directed, and failed to demonstrate any arguable merits or any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, such that the exercise of discretion to extend time and grant leave was not justified.